Driver admits killing Marine cyclist
photos...@gmail.com
Neil Brooks
>http://www.nbcsandiego.com/traffic/5032871/detail.html
Maybe a couple hundred of us did a ride-of-silence for Patrick Klokow
(the victim) a couple of Sundays ago. Local media covered that ride,
too, fortunately.
My local group -- San Diego County Bicycling Coalition -- is working
with the city to make that particular stretch of road more
bike-friendly. 'Tis a nasty stretch.
Never saw the pic's before, though. Awful.
DANCA92...@aol.com
photos...@gmail.com wrote:
> http://www.nbcsandiego.com/traffic/5032871/detail.html
THAT SHOULD TEACH HIM TO STAY IN THE FUCKEN BIKE LANE. HEHE
Wayne Pein
> Maybe a couple hundred of us did a ride-of-silence for Patrick Klokow
> (the victim) a couple of Sundays ago. Local media covered that ride,
> too, fortunately.
>
> My local group -- San Diego County Bicycling Coalition -- is working
> with the city to make that particular stretch of road more
> bike-friendly. 'Tis a nasty stretch.
>
You mean you all are working to remove potential hit & run drivers?
Oh, I bet you mean you are working to get those pesky bicyclists out of
the road and onto bike lanes.
Wayne
Neil Brooks
Not quite as simple as either of those ideas, of course.
Recent e-mail from the group's Executive Director:
-------------------------------------------------------------
As some of you know, I had a meeting today with Councilmember Madaffer
regarding solutions to the problem on Kearny Villa Road. Many people
from the City were in attendance, along with some representatives from
Caltrans.
Overall, the meeting went very well. Councilmember Madaffer expressed
his strong support for making changes that would increase safety on KV
Road, as well as supporting a public education campaign. I think we
have his support to make real change out there. :-)
I brought with me a sample public education campaign that I think
would be a good starting point for a campaign in San Diego. Mr.
Madaffer (and the others in the room) expressed his support for a
public education campaign. I think we will be able to make this move
forward.
Mr. Madaffer and everyone else in the room also support modifying the
KV Road/163 interchange to remove the free right turn movements -
installing a traffic light, and making all the traffic going on to the
163 go up to the light and make a 90 degree turn. Everyone seems to be
on board to make these changes, it is just a matter of getting over
the bureaucratic hurdles and finding some funding. Everyone expressed
that this issue is a priority and should move forward as quickly as
possible. Unfortunately, as quickly as possible will likely be at
least two years.
In the meantime, the City engineers suggested some striping and
signage changes in the area that they feel would help safety. One is
to put bike lane signage up through the interchange and south -
currently the stretch of road between 52 and 163 does not have bike
lane signs or markings. The one place I think we will have some
disagreement with the City is a proposal they put forward to
temporarily change how bicyclists move through the KV Road/163
interchange. Currently cyclists ride straight south, negotiating their
way through the Harris Plant Road offramp, the Harris Plant road
onramp, and the southbound 163 onramp. Their proposal would be to
encourage southbound cyclists to exit on Harris Plant Road and
re-enter KV Road on the other side. This puts cyclists to the right of
all the traffic on KV Road and Harris Plant Road, elminating two
potential collision points - the Harris Plant offramp and onramp. The
bad news is that it puts bicyclists to the right of all the traffic
going onto the SB 163. The proposal is to find some way of creating a
designated location for bicyclists to cross the SB 163 onramp, either
with crosswalk markings, signage, or flashing beacons. My initial
response to this suggestion was that I don't believe it will help the
safety situation, and might make it worse by trapping bicyclists to
the right of the freeway-bound traffic. I actually think keeping the
interchange the way it is right now, until the real solutions can be
implemented, is a better solution. But I believe the City is feeling
an immense amount of pressure to do SOMETHING out there in the short
term, which is why they are even proposing this as an action. This
action woule be temporary, until the real solution can be implemented.
Everyone in the room agrees that the real solution to the problem is
to eliminate the free rights, and everyone is on board to make those
changes.
The City is interested in hearing the Coalition's response to the
proposed changes, and we should talk about them at our board meeting
on Wednesday. Feel free to send to me and the list any comments you
might have.
Again, we've made significant progress already on Kearny Villa Road.
All the powers-that-be agree that the road must be modified and
committed to doing that as quickly as possible. And they all agree
that a public education campaign about safe driving/sharing the road
is a good idea that should be pursued.
h squared
> Oh, I bet you mean you are working to get those pesky bicyclists out of
> the road and onto bike lanes.
>
> Wayne
>
speak for yourself. i like when roads have bike lanes. when i ride on a
busy narrow road without them or any shoulder and with a constant stream
of steady traffic passing within inches of me at 40mph, all i can think
about for the entire ride is painful death or dismemberment. doesn't
really motivate me to get out and ride, being in that state of mind- i
had a friend who used to call surviving rides like that "cheating mr.
death".
h
Curtis L. Russell
wrote:
>Again, we've made significant progress already on Kearny Villa Road.
>All the powers-that-be agree that the road must be modified and
>committed to doing that as quickly as possible. And they all agree
>that a public education campaign about safe driving/sharing the road
>is a good idea that should be pursued.
People that know more about the subject than I and really wanted to
believe in it pretty much have found that 'public education campaigns'
don't seem to work. True traffic education is one thing, since there
are examples that have worked in other countries, but campaigns,
especially the media spots, appear to be a waste of money - unless you
have a budget to keep it going a loooong time and present it
consistently. Media spots on the PBS types are evidently the biggest
waste - but they are more often used as they are more available.
Sat through a couple of good presentations at a GEAR in Wellesley and
in Tennessee about the deficiencies of public education campaigns,
targets and media issues et al, but don't have any of the handouts
anymore.
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
Neil Brooks
I don't disagree, generally, about the lack of efficacy of most PR
campaigns. It's a pretty frustrating situation, to be sure.
My anecdotal experience says the cell-phone using drivers are the
worst. With the recent reports confirming that it's as dangerous as
driving while intoxicated -- with or without a hands-free -- I'm
dismayed that there isn't a strong movement to ban their use while
driving. At least in SoCal, that'd make cycling a bit safer.
Curtis L. Russell
This is the next thing to the helmet wars, but if they are that close,
how does a stripe make them move further away? If there is room for a
lane, then it tends not to be an issue - and a lane stripe cuts both
ways. In DC all I see is it extends the stupidity of the sidewalk
riders into the street. It is less than amusing to see the twits try
to ride both ways on a bike lane clearly marked with a directional
arrow on a one-way street (say, like Q in front of our building, or R
the street up). They see it as one more excuse not to ride a whole
block up and ride with traffic.
And on narrow streets there is a phenomena that can be observed (every
work day in my case) that cars will drive often drive much closer with
a line, using more of 'their' space, than when they have to set the
appropriate cushion. Perhaps the average driver actually has more
common sense than the average traffic engineer trying to meet too many
objectives.
OTOH, the average rider in DC ranks among the worst of any I've seen
anywhere. The wonder is that more aren't killed, maybe on a weekly
basis. I walk instead, occasionally with a shillelagh. There is one
Japanese kid that rides the wrong way down 15th Street oblivious to
pedestrians that will exit with no front spokes one of these days.
Wayne Pein
When I ride on a busy narrow road I use the whole lane, making it my
bike lane.
Wayne
Tom
I'm starting to wish that you would get run over. Have a nice day
twit.
Tom
h squared
>
> This is the next thing to the helmet wars, but if they are that close,
> how does a stripe make them move further away? If there is room for a
> lane, then it tends not to be an issue -
i like big wide roads and big shoulders too. but if someone wants to
improve a road by widening it and painting a bike lane, i'm happy with
them and i'm not going to complain that they ruined it with the paint.
if they just want to paint a bike lane on a street that's already wide
enough for it, that's fine with me too, at least they're showing that
they're aware that cyclists exist. i don't feel like my rights are being
violated or i'm being banned from any street because of a bike lane. the
post i was replying to commented on how bike lanes were getting cyclists
"out of the road", and i was saying in my case, they actually promote my
desire to ride in the road. i don't like riding on the sidewalk, but i'm
not willing to die over my right to ride in the street when it just
doesn't seem safe.
h
photos...@gmail.com
lane.
Bikes are but a speck in the landscape at times. With certain lighting
conditions and certain color contrast issues, we have to come to grips
with the fact that someday, we might just get squished. Sometimes
people just do not see us. I'm not saying that it's right...But
fighting this is like trying to fight murder.
h squared
> The time I was hit from behind (by a drunk driver)
you've written that you've been posting here for years, but i have no
idea who you are. i figure i must know you though, and it bothers me
that someone i know was hit by a drunk driver and i never knew about it
:( sounds like you're ok and recovered now (?)
heather
thomas.t...@gmail.com
Neil Brooks wrote:
> ............
>
> Recent e-mail from the group's Executive Director:
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
I cycle this road daily and am glad to hear of the SDCBC efforts. I
was cycling to work on the other side of the road the morning this
happened.
What was not addressed in the meeting notes is the need to enforce the
50 MPH speed limit. It would help a lot. The speed limit just a mile
back is 65. As a result many motorists are entering the 163 on ramp at
70 or more. A bicyclist has to cross *two* 163 entrance ramp lanes at
that point. There is a big difference between a car approaching at 50
and at 70 or 75.
Speaking only from my own personal experience.
Tom
photos...@gmail.com
I do not recognize your name, but since I left San Diego for college
back in 1990, I have not been much of a racing figure in SD. I live in
AZ now.
I was hit from behind in 1987 while training on northbound Torrey Pines
Road in San Diego, just north of UCSD. I was 19 and a member of SDBC
at the time. Cat 3 rider. I had just left UCSD and was on TPR heading
towards Del Mar. A car was merging from Genessee onto nb Torrey Pines
as I was moving over into the bike lane. When I'd looked back for
traffic, he was like 100-200 yards back. Little did I know he was
going like 75-80 MPH. I even yelled "car back" to my ride mates as we
got over, even considering making no mention of it at all. They made
it, and I didn't. When I suddenly began accelerating, I figured Tony
Olsen must have quietly snuck up on me and given me a turbo push as a
joke. The first hit "bounced" me forward at about 50MPH. I somehow
kept it upright. The second hit made me wobble as the rear wheel was
disintegrating. I flew over the bars, hit the pavement and skidded to
a stop, and came to rest staring at the right front tire's tread
pattern. I was very lucky. No helmet either. The ER doc at Scripps
had been on our club ride the day before, and remembered me. My only
actual injury was a scraped knee and palms. Mavic's G-40 rims may have
saved my life. A lesser wheel might have crushed sooner, and I'd be
dead. The "bounce" probably gave the driver time to slow down
somewhat.
The driver of the car was released with an unsafe driving ticket. As
I sought repayment for my bike, he admitted to me that he was drunk and
that drinking was decimating his life. We settled privately.
While I do not doubt you could figure out who I am with a few
keystrokes and an nslookup...I now prefer to keep my postings
anonymous. Back when "googling" started to become popular, some of my
coworkers one day dug-up some ancient posts. I think I called Tom
Kunich a "pig fucker" or something of that sort. I then figured future
employers of mine would also be googling me down the road, so I dove
into anonymity about 7-8 years ago. As deja news and then google have
screwed around with their usenet front end, I've adopted different
"personas" ("kaiser" being a past name). I'll keep this one as long as
possible. No big if people on rbr figure out who I am. I leave clues
all the time. I just don't want to lose a job over doping arguments.
Tim Lines
> OTOH, the average rider in DC ranks among the worst of any I've seen
> anywhere.
I dunno, us Seattle drivers suck pretty badly too. Washingtonians
generally blame this on all the Californians who've moved up here. I
disagree. I was stationed in CA for 7 years. CA drivers also suck, but
it's a fast, precise type of suckiness as opposed to the "Where the hell
am I? What do you know, I seem to be behind the wheel of a car"
suckiness of Washingtonians.
Suckiness is infinite in it's variety.
rle...@hotmail.com
I was on that ride too -- and it IS a nasty stretch. Traffic at
speed merges from the right. We've got worse in San Diego, though. For
example, there's the Grand Avenue/Mission Bay Drive merge -- a cyclist
was killed there about five hours before the Mission Bay Visitor's
Center element of the ride for Captain Klokow departed. Then there's
Barnett/Pacific Coast Highway -- TWO lanes join from the right, at
expressway speed, and there's a concrete wall in the line of sight so
the only way those motorists could see a cyclist, even if they were
looking, would be X=ray vision.
But any improvement, anywhere, would be nice.
Robert Leone rle...@hotmail.com
Wayne Pein
> Curtis L. Russell wrote:
>
>>
>> This is the next thing to the helmet wars, but if they are that close,
>> how does a stripe make them move further away? If there is room for a
>> lane, then it tends not to be an issue -
>
>
>
> i like big wide roads and big shoulders too. but if someone wants to
> improve a road by widening it and painting a bike lane, i'm happy with
> them and i'm not going to complain that they ruined it with the paint.
> if they just want to paint a bike lane on a street that's already wide
> enough for it, that's fine with me too, at least they're showing that
> they're aware that cyclists exist.
Huh? Did blacks in South Africa exist because they were shoved in
Bantustans?
i don't feel like my rights are being
> violated or i'm being banned from any street because of a bike lane.
But of course they are. You just don't "feel" they are.
the
> post i was replying to commented on how bike lanes were getting cyclists
> "out of the road", and i was saying in my case, they actually promote my
> desire to ride in the road. i don't like riding on the sidewalk, but i'm
> not willing to die over my right to ride in the street when it just
> doesn't seem safe.
>
> h
If you think a magic stripe makes is "seem" safe, or even actually
improves your safety, I think you are being deluded. May I suggest a
thorough examination of:
http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/index.html
Regards,
Wayne
b...@mambo.ucolick.org
> h squared wrote:
> > i like big wide roads and big shoulders too. but if someone wants to
> > improve a road by widening it and painting a bike lane, i'm happy with
> > them and i'm not going to complain that they ruined it with the paint.
> > if they just want to paint a bike lane on a street that's already wide
> > enough for it, that's fine with me too, at least they're showing that
> > they're aware that cyclists exist.
>
> Huh? Did blacks in South Africa exist because they were shoved in
> Bantustans?
Dumbass,
Comparing bike lanes to Bantustans suggests that you
are getting a little bit overheated. The amount of
moral reprehensibility in apartheid vs. treatment of
cyclists isn't very comparable.
> i don't feel like my rights are being
> > violated or i'm being banned from any street because of a bike lane.
>
> But of course they are. You just don't "feel" they are.
You seized on the part you can argue with and
ignored the part where Heather said "if someone wants to
improve a road by widening it and painting a bike lane."
Anti-bike lane rhetoric often misses the "improving and
widening" part. You might be right that painting bike
lane stripes promotes the idea in the general population
that bicyclists should be confined inside the stripes.
But lots of people make the association of bike lanes
and wide roads (since you can't paint a bike lane on
a substandard width road), vs narrow roads which have
no bike lanes. Some of which suck to ride on, even if
you are aggressive and take the lane.
Going around calling those people deluded on Usenet may
help make a rhetorical point, but don't confuse it with
effective cycling advocacy. There, I did it, I got sucked
into this fucking bike lane argument again. It really
belongs in the rec.bicycles.soc enclave (I didn't say
Bantustan).
h squared
> Huh? Did blacks in South Africa exist because they were shoved in
> Bantustans?
>
> i don't feel like my rights are being
>
>> violated or i'm being banned from any street because of a bike lane.
>
>
> But of course they are. You just don't "feel" they are.
how are they being violated? if someone ever tells me i (or any cyclist)
can *only* ride in a street if it has a bike lane, then i will complain
that my rights are being violated, don't you worry.
i wonder if maybe you have had a bad bike lane experience of some sort,
sorry about that. one of the reasons i quit skating was because i got
tired of cyclists telling me that i "don't belong here", etc. so i
empathize. :(
h
h squared
> h squared wrote:
>> if they just want to paint a bike lane on a street that's already wide
>> enough for it, that's fine with me too, at least they're showing that
>> they're aware that cyclists exist.
>
>
>
> Huh? Did blacks in South Africa exist because they were shoved in
> Bantustans?
i just realized that part of what i meant by "at least they showing
they're aware that cyclists exist" wasn't coming thru very well:
about a month ago, i had to detour from a planned route because of road
construction. i didn't know the area, and it's crisscrossed with
freeways so there aren't a lot of thru streets. so i took a street that
would get me to a familiar area. however, little did i know that
suddenly the two right lanes would become "right turn only" lanes and i
really needed to go straight. i wanted to cut across two lanes of
traffic to get to the thru lane, but it's a major arterial and there
wasn't a break in the traffic. i wanted to stop by the side of the road
and wait for a break, but there was no side of the road- no shoulder and
no sidewalk, just a concrete barrier, so i couldn't just stop in the
middle of the road with cars coming at me, so i made the turn and ended
up going the opposite way from what i wanted into this crappy commercial
area that took me about half an hour to ride 5 miles out of.
when i got home i bitched and bitched about that road, and my boyfriend
who grew up in that area said, "the people who designed that road never
imagined that anyone would ever ride a bike down it."
heather
Wayne Pein
> Wayne Pein wrote:
>
>> Huh? Did blacks in South Africa exist because they were shoved in
>> Bantustans?
>>
>> i don't feel like my rights are being
>>
>>> violated or i'm being banned from any street because of a bike lane.
>>
>>
>>
>> But of course they are. You just don't "feel" they are.
>
>
> how are they being violated? if someone ever tells me i (or any cyclist)
> can *only* ride in a street if it has a bike lane, then i will complain
> that my rights are being violated, don't you worry.
Try riding to the left of the strip just because. Notice the harassment.
Note that many/most places that have bike lanes also have mandatory bike
lane laws.
>
> i wonder if maybe you have had a bad bike lane experience of some sort,
> sorry about that. one of the reasons i quit skating was because i got
> tired of cyclists telling me that i "don't belong here", etc. so i
> empathize. :(
>
> h
Yes, I've had many bad bike lane experiences. Like the ubiquitous
debris. Like the substandard width (even for bike lanes, which by
definition are substandard lanes). Like the increased hazard from cross
traffic.
Bike Lanes and wide lanes are there to allow motorists to pass easier.
Placing the restrictive bike lane stipe introduces problems to the wide
lane.
Wayne
Wayne Pein
Freeway design roads are reasonable locales for bike lanes. The
expectation of very high speed, lack of cross traffic, and lack of
turning movements makes channelizing bicycle users defensible.
Other normal roads should not have them and are better served with
normal or wide lanes.
Wayne
Wayne Pein
> Wayne Pein wrote:
>
>>Huh? Did blacks in South Africa exist because they were shoved in
>>Bantustans?
>
>
> Dumbass,
>
> Comparing bike lanes to Bantustans suggests that you
> are getting a little bit overheated. The amount of
> moral reprehensibility in apartheid vs. treatment of
> cyclists isn't very comparable.
You are basing your assessment on scale. They are comparable in that
both populations are displaced.
>
>
>>i don't feel like my rights are being
>>
>>>violated or i'm being banned from any street because of a bike lane.
>>
>>But of course they are. You just don't "feel" they are.
>
>
> You seized on the part you can argue with and
> ignored the part where Heather said "if someone wants to
> improve a road by widening it and painting a bike lane."
> Anti-bike lane rhetoric often misses the "improving and
> widening" part.
No, I didn't miss it. When I ride my bike on a narrow road, I've got x
number of feet of width to choose my lateral position. If motorists are
delayed behind me, tough shit. That's not my problem. If I was driving a
front loader would I give a rat's ass about delaying motorists? Both me
and my wife are sometimes delayed behind slow moving front loaders while
on our bikes. We have to stop for busses. Congestion. Damn, traffic lights!
Now add a 4-5 foot bike lane. Whoo hoo! Now my space has been halved and
I get the debris that inevitably results. Motorists get to pass faster.
There is greater risk of being obscured by such passing motorists and
being whacked by someone turning.
You might be right that painting bike
> lane stripes promotes the idea in the general population
> that bicyclists should be confined inside the stripes.
You get the point. Here there's a 2-lane road with 2 ft shoulders that
were recently added. Motorists now think I'm supposed to be on the
shoulder. Bike lanes are merely wider shoulders intended for one class
of vehicle operator. Feeling privledged yet?
>
> But lots of people make the association of bike lanes
> and wide roads (since you can't paint a bike lane on
> a substandard width road), vs narrow roads which have
> no bike lanes. Some of which suck to ride on, even if
> you are aggressive and take the lane.
They suck because motorists can be assholes. So train motorists to be
respectful of others. Don't push bicyclists out of their way and give
them what they want. Or add another real lane, not a bike lane.
Wayne
h squared
> Try riding to the left of the strip just because. Notice the harassment.
> Note that many/most places that have bike lanes also have mandatory bike
> lane laws.
i've never been harassed while riding a bike, just treated callously by
passing drivers who think they have to pass NOW whether there's room or
not. i think we may be experiencing regional differences. (or else i'm
just so pitiful looking riding my bike that i inspire kindness or
something...)
> Yes, I've had many bad bike lane experiences. Like the ubiquitous
> debris. Like the substandard width (even for bike lanes, which by
> definition are substandard lanes). Like the increased hazard from cross
> traffic.
if you feel like you have to stay in a lane that's filled with debris
and is too narrow, that's not right. maybe you could ask those "in
charge" what the law is when a bike lane isn't safe enough for a rider?
in seattle, pedestrians have the right of way in the street if the
sidewalk is blocked or unsafe to use, they aren't required to stay on it
at all times, for example.
anyhow, i've always viewed bike lanes as a lane where cars aren't
allowed to be, no matter what (except at right turns), not as a spot
where bikes *have* to stay. for you it's a restriction, for me it's a
privilege. i don't know where you live, but i hope i'm never moving there :)
heather
b...@mambo.ucolick.org
> anonymous.u_lick.org wrote:
Screwing with my email address is childish. It's a real
email address (if you want me to see the email faster, leave
out the computer name) and you can find my name with Google
if you care.
> > You might be right that painting bike
> > lane stripes promotes the idea in the general population
> > that bicyclists should be confined inside the stripes.
>
> You get the point. Here there's a 2-lane road with 2 ft shoulders that
> were recently added. Motorists now think I'm supposed to be on the
> shoulder. Bike lanes are merely wider shoulders intended for one class
> of vehicle operator. Feeling privledged yet?
Don't patronize. I know the argument because I've read
it many times on Usenet and other places. I even agree with
it to a limited extent. But, from an advocacy point of view,
you did a lousy job of explaining it. I only knew your
argument because I'm reading your mind; your original post
completely failed to explain to Heather (or anyone who isn't
a bike-advocacy geek) the principles behind opposing bike lanes.
> > Some of which suck to ride on, even if
> > you are aggressive and take the lane.
>
> They suck because motorists can be assholes. So train motorists to be
> respectful of others. Don't push bicyclists out of their way and give
> them what they want. Or add another real lane, not a bike lane.
This only goes so far. People who are comfortable riding
bikes on the street (as opposed to the bike path crowd)
generally can ride comfortably on the average city street
with or without a bike lane, and without any extra width to
the lane. But when you get to busy shoulderless arterials
where the traffic moves 40-50 mph, rhetoric about taking the
whole lane and training motorists to wait is empty. This is
when the riders start whining for a bike lane, and you start
preaching at them.
On my commute home, I have to ride about 150 meters up a hill
on an arterial with 3 car lanes each direction, no extra width,
people driving way too fast (it is a road with sidewalks,
driveways etc). I usually ride outside rush hour and take the
lane, and take the occasional ass-clenching moment as a bus or
truck decelerates from 50 to 15 mph behind me. My co-worker,
who is less fit and rides at rush hour, rides up on the sidewalk
with the driveways and broken glass. Honestly I can't blame
him. If all you have to say to him is to sneer that bike lanes
are ghettos, you are not going to be doing effective cycling
advocacy.
photos...@gmail.com
only for hikers and horses.
h squared
> and take the occasional ass-clenching moment as a bus or
> truck decelerates from 50 to 15 mph behind me.
>
goddamn it, now i'm going to have random moments of worry about you. i
think i liked it better when i thought of you more as my dad (back when
i thought you were 55) instead of worrying like an irrational mother
about your bike ride home.
heather (apparently has parent "issues")
h squared
> Sounds like the Sierra Club telling MB riders that trails were meant
> only for hikers and horses.
>
those experiences depressed me because i would be so happy to have
someone to say "hi" too when they would come riding past, and instead i
would end up feeling like i was ruining their day with my presence. most
cyclists were friendly, but i fixate more on the negative crap,
unfortunately. now i ride my bike, with much less skill and barely
faster than i skated, but nobody can say a word about it, so i can smile
and say "hi" all i like without getting my feelings hurt.
heather
Mark & Steven Bornfeld
Wow--couldn't agree more.
Amazing--some cyclists think racers are exclusive snobs. Some of the
cycling advocates make racers look welcoming by comparison.
There's more to cycling advocacy than telling neophyte cyclists to suck
it up and ride with traffic.
Steve
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
Howard Kveck
Wayne Pein <wp...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
> They suck because motorists can be assholes. So train motorists to be
> respectful of others.
I can't help noticing a slight disconnect with this statement and your
earlier statement:
> No, I didn't miss it. When I ride my bike on a narrow road, I've got x
> number of feet of width to choose my lateral position. If motorists are
> delayed behind me, tough shit. That's not my problem.
"Train motorists to be respectful of others", while you feel free to delay
them, thinking, "Tough shit". Nice...
--
tanx,
Howard
Butter is love.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
Jim Flom
news:DMydnRMSTr1...@comcast.com...
I was just going to say, Heather, you are majorly on track for the
prestigious mother hen of rbr award.
JF
--
http://spaces.msn.com/members/flomblog/
h squared
> I was just going to say, Heather, you are majorly on track for the
> prestigious mother hen of rbr award.
i'm sure i must have it clinched...just this morning i was wondering if
you were still trying to cheat mr death on that hill of yours.
h
Jim Flom
>
> i'm sure i must have it clinched...just this morning i was wondering if
> you were still trying to cheat mr death on that hill of yours.
Now THAT is weird. I was.
JF
--
http://spaces.msn.com/members/flomblog/
Curtis L. Russell
<bornfe...@dentaltwins.com> wrote:
> Wow--couldn't agree more.
> Amazing--some cyclists think racers are exclusive snobs. Some of the
>cycling advocates make racers look welcoming by comparison.
> There's more to cycling advocacy than telling neophyte cyclists to suck
>it up and ride with traffic.
Unfortunately, very few bother and the rest complain about those that
do - on both sides. And the knock on bike racers is also that they can
cause some of the biggest dings on bike-nonbike relations (it probably
never occurs to most other bikers to pee on a church parking lot on a
Sunday) and provide some of the lowest or non-existent turnout at any
advocacy meeting. When I was familiar enough with practically all the
bike racers in the state, the only group consistently present at
Maryland advocacy meetings were the mountain bikers.
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
Steven Bornfeld
Curtis L. Russell wrote:
>
>
> Unfortunately, very few bother and the rest complain about those that
> do - on both sides. And the knock on bike racers is also that they can
> cause some of the biggest dings on bike-nonbike relations (it probably
> never occurs to most other bikers to pee on a church parking lot on a
> Sunday) and provide some of the lowest or non-existent turnout at any
> advocacy meeting. When I was familiar enough with practically all the
> bike racers in the state, the only group consistently present at
> Maryland advocacy meetings were the mountain bikers.
>
> Curtis L. Russell
> Odenton, MD (USA)
> Just someone on two wheels...
As the former president of a decent-sized (maybe 300 members) bike
club, I can sadly attest to bad behavior by both racing and non-racing
cyclists.
Steve
--
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang1033{\fonttbl{\f0\fswiss\fcharset0
Arial;}}
{\*\generator Msftedit 5.41.15.1507;}\viewkind4\uc1\pard\f0\fs20 Remove
"nospam" to reply\par
}
Wayne Pein
There is no disconnect, only your interpretation of me.
There is no "right" to do the speed limit. Expect Delays. One may only
do the speed limit if the conditions support that. If they don't, then
one must go slower. The presence of a bicycle driver in the lane is one
of those conditions. I don't feel guilty about that.
You also conveniently left out my statement that front loaders delay
motorists. Busses delay motorists. Lights delay motorists. While I would
rather not delay motorists, I'm not going to loose sleep over it. The
delay of a single bicyclist on a narrow lane is inconsequential. If I
have a queue of motorists behind me for an appreciable amount of time, I
will pull off the road. However, there has never been a need for that.
I feel that as a vehicle operator I am entitled to a lane. Not just a
part of the lane, teetering on the edge like the vast majority of
bicyclists. The whole lane. When I operate on its right side, like I do
most of the time, I expect motorists to pass me cautiously if they are
using MY lane. Especially since I am being generous to them. However,
under certain conditions I excercise my right to use the full lane. And
again, I don't feel guilty about it.
Wayne
Wayne Pein
> Wayne Pein wrote:
>
>>anonymous.u_lick.org wrote:
>
>
> Screwing with my email address is childish. It's a real
> email address (if you want me to see the email faster, leave
> out the computer name) and you can find my name with Google
> if you care.
Pardon me, but addressing me first as Dumbass is childish, and will not
endear you to me. If you don't want to be screwed with, don't *start*
the screwing with.
>
>
>>>You might be right that painting bike
>>>lane stripes promotes the idea in the general population
>>>that bicyclists should be confined inside the stripes.
>>
>>You get the point. Here there's a 2-lane road with 2 ft shoulders that
>>were recently added. Motorists now think I'm supposed to be on the
>>shoulder. Bike lanes are merely wider shoulders intended for one class
>>of vehicle operator. Feeling privledged yet?
>
>
> Don't patronize. I know the argument because I've read
> it many times on Usenet and other places. I even agree with
> it to a limited extent. But, from an advocacy point of view,
> you did a lousy job of explaining it. I only knew your
> argument because I'm reading your mind; your original post
> completely failed to explain to Heather (or anyone who isn't
> a bike-advocacy geek) the principles behind opposing bike lanes.
Hence the previously posted link.
Wayne
b...@mambo.ucolick.org
> b...@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
> > Screwing with my email address is childish.
>
> Pardon me, but addressing me first as Dumbass is childish, and will not
> endear you to me. If you don't want to be screwed with, don't *start*
> the screwing with.
It's an rbr honorific, like calling people "Comrade."
You do read rbr enough to know that.
> > But, from an advocacy point of view,
> > you did a lousy job of explaining it. I only knew your
> > argument because I'm reading your mind; your original post
> > completely failed to explain to Heather (or anyone who isn't
> > a bike-advocacy geek) the principles behind opposing bike lanes.
>
> Hence the previously posted link.
Calling someone deluded and then posting a link to an
umbrella website is not up there in how to win friends and
influence people. Even if it is a generally reasonable and
on topic website.
Your position is fine. It's your presentation that stinks.
This happens to many passionate advocates - they get so used to
fighting that they start picking fights with the people they
should be persuading. Just so it's clear, I'm not badgering you
because I disagree with you. I'm badgering you because I agree
with you.
Wayne Pein
> Wayne Pein wrote:
>
>>b...@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
>
>
>>>Screwing with my email address is childish.
>>
>>Pardon me, but addressing me first as Dumbass is childish, and will not
>>endear you to me. If you don't want to be screwed with, don't *start*
>>the screwing with.
>
>
> It's an rbr honorific, like calling people "Comrade."
> You do read rbr enough to know that.
>
>
>>> But, from an advocacy point of view,
>>>you did a lousy job of explaining it. I only knew your
>>>argument because I'm reading your mind; your original post
>>>completely failed to explain to Heather (or anyone who isn't
>>>a bike-advocacy geek) the principles behind opposing bike lanes.
>>
>>Hence the previously posted link.
>
>
> Calling someone deluded and then posting a link to an
> umbrella website is not up there in how to win friends and
> influence people. Even if it is a generally reasonable and
> on topic website.
I said she was being deluded. Perhaps misled is a softer
characterization for you. The topic of bike lanes cannot be described
adequately in one crummy thread on an generally off-topic newsgroup.
That is why a website with lots of links that can be read at one's
leisure IS an appropriate way to advocate.
>
> Your position is fine. It's your presentation that stinks.
> This happens to many passionate advocates - they get so used to
> fighting that they start picking fights with the people they
> should be persuading. Just so it's clear, I'm not badgering you
> because I disagree with you. I'm badgering you because I agree
> with you.
>
I appreciate the concern, and will take it into consideration. However,
you must also consider that you are a passionate advocate and have read
more into my posts to Heather and the OP than was actually there. It may
have been more esoteric than most people would easily understand (and I
quickly tried to shed more light by posting the website link), but I
hardly think it was picking a fight as you characterize it. Besides,
this newsgroup is practically all about fighting, people here have thick
skin, and a little controversy gets their interest. I agree with you
100% that it is important to persuade these folks.
Wayne
Ewoud Dronkert
> this newsgroup is practically all about fighting
I find this a lovely newsgroup. The only time we hit any trouble is on
crossposts from aus.* or downhill skiers.
--
E. Dronkert
h squared
> . I agree with you
> 100% that it is important to persuade these folks.
>
> Wayne
sadly for long suffering rbr, it's going to be hard to convince me that
i don't like bike lanes when i've only had positive experiences with
them. i feel bad reading your experiences, but i've never had any of
your bike lane problems, and i can't figure out why you have these
problems and i don't. (that's why i was wondering if maybe it was a
regional thing). all of my bad experiences have come on narrow roads
without bike lanes (the buzzing, the repeated honking while passing,
blah blah blah; that's why sometimes i use the sidewalk as an impromptu
bike lane now, just to avoid that crap).
sorry to be troublesome, i guess i'm wasted effort, but i hope you
always have nice rides in your future to make up for all this,
h
Kyle Legate
>
> I feel that as a vehicle operator I am entitled to a lane. Not just a
> part of the lane, teetering on the edge like the vast majority of
> bicyclists. The whole lane. When I operate on its right side, like I do
> most of the time, I expect motorists to pass me cautiously if they are
> using MY lane. Especially since I am being generous to them. However,
> under certain conditions I excercise my right to use the full lane. And
> again, I don't feel guilty about it.
>
pushing a baby carriage. Neither of you are paying road taxes for the
right to use the road. The usual arguement that a bicycle doesn't cause
the damage to the road that a larger vehicle does doesn't invalidate the
point that you are getting something for nothing when you ride a bike on
the road. Try not to be so self-righteous about it.
Jim Flom
news:3qgrs6F...@individual.net...
Most states and provinces use the language that bicycles are "vehicles" and
that cyclists must ride as far to the right as "practicable." That gives
more "right" to the roadway than the young mama pushing the baby carriage.
That's legal DOT language, not "usual arguments."
Happy birthday to me,
JF
--
http://spaces.msn.com/members/flomblog/
Steven Bornfeld
Are you sure? To the best of my knowledge, most roads allow
pedestrians and I doubt that most forbid baby carriages. Of course,
this is with the exception of restricted access highways, which usually
expressly forbid pedestrians--and cyclists (unless a dedicated
pedestrian/bike lane is provided).
Happy birthday!
Jim Flom
news:43433E7D...@earthlink.net...
Thanks!
I confess my focus with the question was more along the lines of bicycles as
vehicles and "practicable" as a legal term than focusing on the
pedestrian/baby carriage question. From sea to shining sea...
Pennsylvania (whose bicycle manual seems to have (finally) been written by
cyclists and for cyclists) ....
http://www.dot.state.pa.us/BIKE/WEB/INDEX.htm
[3301(b). Vehicle proceeding at less than normal speed.
Upon all roadways, any vehicles proceeding at less than the normal speed of
traffic at the time and place under the conditions than existing shall be
driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic, or as close as
__practicable__ to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, except when
overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or
when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into an alley, private
road or driveway. This subsection does not apply to a driver who must
necessarily drive in a lane other than the right-hand lane to continue on
his intended route.]
British Columbia http://www.bikesense.bc.ca/
How far to the right should you ride?
The law requires traffic moving at less than the normal speed of traffic to
keep as close as __practicable__ to the right hand curb or edge of the
roadway, but that does not mean hugging the curb or edge of the road. You
always need some extra space to manoeuvre around road hazards without
running the risk of hitting the curb or going off the edge of the road. This
allows you to move away from traffic instead of directly into traffic in the
event of an emergency manoeuvre. Motorists are required to pass 'at a safe
distance' and must not return to the right of the roadway until they have
fully passed you. As a general rule, ride approximately one metre from the
curb.
Can't speak for the other 49 states, nine provinces and three territories.
JF
--
http://spaces.msn.com/members/flomblog/
Howard Kveck
Wayne Pein <wp...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
> Howard Kveck wrote:
>
> > In article <G4f0f.77633$SL.20...@twister.southeast.rr.com>,
> > Wayne Pein <wp...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>They suck because motorists can be assholes. So train motorists to be
> >>respectful of others.
> >
> >
> > I can't help noticing a slight disconnect with this statement and your
> > earlier statement:
> >
> >
> >>No, I didn't miss it. When I ride my bike on a narrow road, I've got x
> >>number of feet of width to choose my lateral position. If motorists are
> >>delayed behind me, tough shit. That's not my problem.
> >
> >
> > "Train motorists to be respectful of others", while you feel free to
> > delay
> > them, thinking, "Tough shit". Nice...
> >
>
>
> There is no disconnect, only your interpretation of me.
>
> There is no "right" to do the speed limit. Expect Delays. One may only
> do the speed limit if the conditions support that. If they don't, then
> one must go slower. The presence of a bicycle driver in the lane is one
> of those conditions. I don't feel guilty about that.
I think you missed the point. You want motorists to be respectful of you, but
when you take up a whole lane and delay the motorists that you expect respect
from, you "don't give a shit".
> You also conveniently left out my statement that front loaders delay
> motorists. Busses delay motorists. Lights delay motorists. While I would
> rather not delay motorists, I'm not going to loose sleep over it. The
> delay of a single bicyclist on a narrow lane is inconsequential. If I
> have a queue of motorists behind me for an appreciable amount of time, I
> will pull off the road. However, there has never been a need for that.
Hmm, a front loader or bus pretty much takes up a whole lane by default.
They're big. But a cyclist isn't. See the difference? "Conveniently left out my
statement..."? No, it doesn't really relate.
To you, any delay of a motorist is inconsequential. Perhaps it isn't to the
motorist. I'm aware that the effort that a car driver needs to put out to get
back any time they may have lost when held up is pretty minor (like pressing
their right foot down a little harder for a moment or two). But many people
don't see it that way when they're driving. There's some people who see a bike
in the lane the same way as a bull sees the proverbial red flag.
> I feel that as a vehicle operator I am entitled to a lane. Not just a
> part of the lane, teetering on the edge like the vast majority of
> bicyclists. The whole lane. When I operate on its right side, like I do
> most of the time, I expect motorists to pass me cautiously if they are
> using MY lane. Especially since I am being generous to them. However,
> under certain conditions I excercise my right to use the full lane. And
> again, I don't feel guilty about it.
Well, what can I say, you have an interesting attitude about it. As Kyle
said, it's pretty self-righteous. The problem is that one day you may find
someone who decides that he doesn't give a shit about your right to use a whole
lane and punts you into a ditch. I ride on the right side of the road until
conditions require that I move over; when I do, I try to coordinate and
cooperate with the cars, as it makes for a more enjoyable experience. Believe
me, I'm not cowering along in the gutter and stopping until cars are past - I
get through traffic and down narrow roads with fast traffic just fine.
Curtis L. Russell
<YOURh...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
> Hmm, a front loader or bus pretty much takes up a whole lane by default.
>They're big. But a cyclist isn't. See the difference? "Conveniently left out my
>statement..."? No, it doesn't really relate.
The argument in general isn't that the bicyclist uses the whole lane
all the time - only that there are times that taking the lane
significantly impacts the safety of the cyclist. At those times, using
the complete lane is justified and is legal in much of the U.S.
Curtis L. Russell
wrote:
>As a bicycle rider you have as much right to a whole lane as a woman
>pushing a baby carriage. Neither of you are paying road taxes for the
>right to use the road. The usual arguement that a bicycle doesn't cause
>the damage to the road that a larger vehicle does doesn't invalidate the
>point that you are getting something for nothing when you ride a bike on
>the road. Try not to be so self-righteous about it.
And you evidently haven't spent much time in budget hearings that
involve financing local and state roads inthe U.S. If you pay taxes in
the U.S. into the general local and state tax base, you're paying for
the roads and most employed bicyclists are paying for more than their
road use in hard dollars.
Road taxes are not a claim on the roads and the arguments for who pays
what have nothing whatsoever to do with how much one uses them or who
has a right to them - no more than you can argue whose children can
attend school based on how much taxes they pay into the tax base that
pays for the schools.
Koen De Poorter
Right on, and what's more I (and probably you too) pay road taxes on your
car that's sitting in your garage while your cycling.
Koen
John Forrest Tomlinson
>pushing a baby carriage. Neither of you are paying road taxes for the
>right to use the road. The usual arguement that a bicycle doesn't cause
>the damage to the road that a larger vehicle does doesn't invalidate the
>point that you are getting something for nothing
In the US everyone who pays income taxes contrbutes to our road
system, so that stament is wrong here at least. I suspect it's the
same in Canada.
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
Wayne Pein
> I confess my focus with the question was more along the lines of bicycles as
> vehicles and "practicable" as a legal term than focusing on the
> pedestrian/baby carriage question. From sea to shining sea...
>
> Pennsylvania (whose bicycle manual seems to have (finally) been written by
> cyclists and for cyclists) ....
> http://www.dot.state.pa.us/BIKE/WEB/INDEX.htm
> [3301(b). Vehicle proceeding at less than normal speed.
> Upon all roadways, any vehicles proceeding at less than the normal speed of
> traffic at the time and place under the conditions than existing shall be
> driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic, or as close as
> __practicable__ to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway,
Note that it says, OR close as practicable. OR indicates two choices.
Drive in the right hand lane when there are marked lanes. OR when there
is no marking, like on residential and other minor streets, drive as
close as practicable to the side. There is no indication for a vehicle
operator to drive on the right hand side of a marked lane.
Wayne
Wayne Pein
Sorry, but you are very mistaken. You got a lot of catching up to do.
Wayne
Wayne Pein
>>There is no "right" to do the speed limit. Expect Delays. One may only
>>do the speed limit if the conditions support that. If they don't, then
>>one must go slower. The presence of a bicycle driver in the lane is one
>>of those conditions. I don't feel guilty about that.
>
>
> I think you missed the point. You want motorists to be respectful of you, but
> when you take up a whole lane and delay the motorists that you expect respect
> from, you "don't give a shit".
Not giving a shit when I delay motorists is different from not
respecting them. Like I said, I'd rather not delay them whether I drive
my bike or my car, but it happens and that is life. I similarly don't
worry that I have 40 grocery items and the person behind me has 20.
>
>
>>You also conveniently left out my statement that front loaders delay
>>motorists. Busses delay motorists. Lights delay motorists. While I would
>>rather not delay motorists, I'm not going to loose sleep over it. The
>>delay of a single bicyclist on a narrow lane is inconsequential. If I
>>have a queue of motorists behind me for an appreciable amount of time, I
>>will pull off the road. However, there has never been a need for that.
>
>
> Hmm, a front loader or bus pretty much takes up a whole lane by default.
> They're big. But a cyclist isn't. See the difference? "Conveniently left out my
> statement..."? No, it doesn't really relate.
No, I don't see the difference. Just because a bicycle is narrow doesn't
mean it should get less space for the convenience of other road users.
As a lightweight and vulnerable user, bicyclists should be though of as
being as wide as any other vehicle to account for buffer.
>
> To you, any delay of a motorist is inconsequential. Perhaps it isn't to the
> motorist. I'm aware that the effort that a car driver needs to put out to get
> back any time they may have lost when held up is pretty minor (like pressing
> their right foot down a little harder for a moment or two). But many people
> don't see it that way when they're driving. There's some people who see a bike
> in the lane the same way as a bull sees the proverbial red flag.
That is their psychological problem, not mine. Why should we pander to
this?
>
>
>>I feel that as a vehicle operator I am entitled to a lane. Not just a
>>part of the lane, teetering on the edge like the vast majority of
>>bicyclists. The whole lane. When I operate on its right side, like I do
>>most of the time, I expect motorists to pass me cautiously if they are
>>using MY lane. Especially since I am being generous to them. However,
>>under certain conditions I excercise my right to use the full lane. And
>>again, I don't feel guilty about it.
>
>
> Well, what can I say, you have an interesting attitude about it. As Kyle
> said, it's pretty self-righteous.
Huh? I think you need to read what I wrote again.
Further, Kyle has no clue, as others have posted. Paying taxes or other
fees is irrelevant to the use of the roads. If bicycle drivers had to
pay, they would. But since there is no requirement and no mechanism for
us to pay, then the fools ought to shut up.
The problem is that one day you may find
> someone who decides that he doesn't give a shit about your right to use a whole
> lane and punts you into a ditch.
Oh no, now its the Culture of Fear angle. No bicyclist can do anything
about psychotics.
I ride on the right side of the road until
> conditions require that I move over; when I do, I try to coordinate and
> cooperate with the cars, as it makes for a more enjoyable experience. Believe
> me, I'm not cowering along in the gutter and stopping until cars are past - I
> get through traffic and down narrow roads with fast traffic just fine.
>
So do I.
Regards,
Wayne
Same Roads, Same Rights, Same Rules
Steven Bornfeld
Wayne Pein wrote:
>
>
> No, I don't see the difference. Just because a bicycle is narrow doesn't
> mean it should get less space for the convenience of other road users.
> As a lightweight and vulnerable user, bicyclists should be though of as
> being as wide as any other vehicle to account for buffer.
What are you going to do about all those folks driving 3 ton SUVs who
don't see it exactly that way?
And what am I going to do when they come after me the next time?
Steve
>
Eric S
> As a bicycle rider you have as much right to a whole lane as a woman
> pushing a baby carriage. Neither of you are paying road taxes for the
> right to use the road. The usual arguement that a bicycle doesn't cause
> the damage to the road that a larger vehicle does doesn't invalidate the
> point that you are getting something for nothing when you ride a bike on
> the road. Try not to be so self-righteous about it.
WTF? Hey, I have two cars, a house, and I buy milk, shirts, CDs,
refrigerators, and all the other things that generate the taxes that
cover 75% of the KDOT highway budget here in Kansas. AND I pay my gas
and car property taxes, too! So I AM paying "road taxes" and then
using less than my share. So are all of my teammates and riding
partners, AFAIK.
That's right, like most states in the US, Kansas only covers about a
QUARTER of its $1B annual highway budget with automobile and gas taxes.
So when I'm on my bike, I'm not only using a facility I've paid for,
I'm subidizing those who choose a bigger vehicle. No idea about the
funding scheme in your neck of the woods.
No self-righteousness here, just a quick examination of KDOT's own fact
sheets. Something for nothing? Hardly. You may simply be expressing
(or trying to help understand) a POV, but at least try to get it right.
State gas tax in Kansas: 18 measly cents/gallon.
Eric
Kyle Legate
No, but the quality of schooling kids get seems to be tied into how much
tax their family pays. See "Still Separate, Still Unequal" in the Sept
issue of Harpers for the sordid details.
Wayne Pein
>
>
> Wayne Pein wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> No, I don't see the difference. Just because a bicycle is narrow
>> doesn't mean it should get less space for the convenience of other
>> road users. As a lightweight and vulnerable user, bicyclists should be
>> though of as being as wide as any other vehicle to account for buffer.
>
>
> What are you going to do about all those folks driving 3 ton SUVs
> who don't see it exactly that way?
Their ignorance needs to be addressed with better driver education, and
perhaps a bit of . In the meantime, I'm a critical mass of one. And if
those folks don't see it exactly the way I do, they can stew about. Oh,
and I don't care whether they drive SUVs, minis, dump trucks, or pogo
sticks.
> And what am I going to do when they come after me the next time?
>
> Steve
Oh no, more Culture of Fear rhetoric. If they come after you in their
big scary SUVs because of my actions, send them to me.
Wayne
h squared
> And what am I going to do when they come after me the next time?
i doubt anyone is going to come after you because of wayne :) but people
do sometimes lump like together when they're mad. twice now i've been
behind cyclist/pedestrian "interactions" and both times the cyclist has
just ridden away, so the pedestrian turns around and starts yelling at
me about it like i did it. one of the times i had even gotten off my
bike and was passing the ped. on foot (yes, we were on a sidewalk, but
it was the ballard bridge and cyclists have to cross that bridge on the
sidewalk), and they still started to yell at me for "scaring them/
running them down" until i pointed out to them that i was walking my
bike and passing them very carefully, giving verbal warning, etc, unlike
the cyclist who had just zoomed passed a second earlier.
good times!
heather
Curtis L. Russell
wrote:
>No, but the quality of schooling kids get seems to be tied into how much
>tax their family pays. See "Still Separate, Still Unequal" in the Sept
>issue of Harpers for the sordid details.
So you're arguing bicyclists should be able to ride on the roads as
long as they ride the ones with potholes? This sort of moves OT to
OOT.
h squared
> As a lightweight and vulnerable user, bicyclists should be though of as
> being as wide as any other vehicle to account for buffer.
but i don't know of any driver who thinks of a bike as being as wide as
any other vehicle. nobody has ever passed me as if i'm as wide as a
hummer or a city bus.
heather
Jim Flom
>
> nobody has ever passed me as if i'm as wide as a hummer or a city bus.
After a few days in the backcountry I've had people pass me like that. I've
always wondered why.
J "smells like roses" F
--
http://spaces.msn.com/members/flomblog/
Howard Kveck
"Jim Flom " <jimREM...@telus.net> wrote:
> "h squared" <clevistoreply...@comcast.net> wrote ...
> >
> > nobody has ever passed me as if i'm as wide as a hummer or a city bus.
>
> After a few days in the backcountry I've had people pass me like that. I've
> always wondered why.
>
> J "smells like roses" F
Maybe it's the cloud of flies that fools them into thinking you're wider...
Steven Bornfeld
Kyle Legate wrote:
>
> No, but the quality of schooling kids get seems to be tied into how much
> tax their family pays. See "Still Separate, Still Unequal" in the Sept
> issue of Harpers for the sordid details.
Read it. Good article, old story.
Steven Bornfeld
You must be one tough scary dood.
Steven Bornfeld
Exactly.
When I argue from the moral highground like Wayne, my wife says my
epitaph will be "He died fighting for his right of way."
Steven Bornfeld
I once read where a reporter asked this woman why she bought an SUV.
Her answer was that if she gets into an altercation with a car "I win".
I doubt this woman will think of Wayne as "as wide as any other vehicle".
If my daughter ever spoke like Wayne I'd take her bike away. But I'm
guessing Wayne is more than 9 years old.
Howard Kveck
Curtis L. Russell <cur...@md-bicycling.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 23:38:15 -0700, Howard Kveck
> <YOURh...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
>
> > Hmm, a front loader or bus pretty much takes up a whole lane by default.
> >They're big. But a cyclist isn't. See the difference? "Conveniently left out
> >my
> >statement..."? No, it doesn't really relate.
>
> The argument in general isn't that the bicyclist uses the whole lane
> all the time - only that there are times that taking the lane
> significantly impacts the safety of the cyclist. At those times, using
> the complete lane is justified and is legal in much of the U.S.
I agree with that, Curtis, but it seems to me from reading his posts that
Wayne is an absolutist on lane use, and his view of what constitutes
"significantly impacts the safety of the cyclist" might be decided based on a
much lower standard than others have (certainly me).
I'm not all that sure there's a lot of difference between helmet zealots
(both pro and con), and lane use zealots.
Howard Kveck
Wayne Pein <wp...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
> Howard Kveck wrote:
> >>There is no "right" to do the speed limit. Expect Delays. One may only
> >>do the speed limit if the conditions support that. If they don't, then
> >>one must go slower. The presence of a bicycle driver in the lane is one
> >>of those conditions. I don't feel guilty about that.
> >
> >
> > I think you missed the point. You want motorists to be respectful of
> > you, but when you take up a whole lane and delay the motorists that
> > you expect respect from, you "don't give a shit".
>
> Not giving a shit when I delay motorists is different from not
> respecting them. Like I said, I'd rather not delay them whether I drive
> my bike or my car, but it happens and that is life. I similarly don't
> worry that I have 40 grocery items and the person behind me has 20.
Well, I see those as two very different situations. The worst that'll happen
in the grocery store is that the person might huff and bump your ankle with
their cart.
> No, I don't see the difference. Just because a bicycle is narrow doesn't
> mean it should get less space for the convenience of other road users.
> As a lightweight and vulnerable user, bicyclists should be though of as
> being as wide as any other vehicle to account for buffer.
"Should be", but aren't. Fact.
> > To you, any delay of a motorist is inconsequential. Perhaps it isn't to
> > the motorist. I'm aware that the effort that a car driver needs to put out
> > to get back any time they may have lost when held up is pretty minor (like
> > pressing their right foot down a little harder for a moment or two). But
> > many people don't see it that way when they're driving. There's some people
> > who see a bike in the lane the same way as a bull sees the proverbial red flag.
>
> That is their psychological problem, not mine. Why should we pander to
> this?
Because they might just decide to run your ass over due to their
psychological problem??
> > Well, what can I say, you have an interesting attitude about it. As Kyle
> > said, it's pretty self-righteous.
>
> Huh? I think you need to read what I wrote again.
>
> Further, Kyle has no clue, as others have posted. Paying taxes or other
> fees is irrelevant to the use of the roads. If bicycle drivers had to
> pay, they would. But since there is no requirement and no mechanism for
> us to pay, then the fools ought to shut up.
Maybe you should reread what I wrote. I wasn't addressing the tax issue. Your
attitude about "my lane" was what I felt was self -righteous.
> > The problem is that one day you may find someone who decides that he doesn't
> > give a shit about your right to use a whole lane and punts you into a ditch.
>
> Oh no, now its the Culture of Fear angle. No bicyclist can do anything
> about psychotics.
Indeed. But perhaps cyclists can try to not enflame their hate. I'm not going
down any "Culture of Fear" path, either. It's logic. Ever get hit by a car? It's
not fun. So why behave in this way that increases the chances of a bad
interaction? Besides, *you* may not be the person who bears the brunt of the
psycho's retaliation - it might be the next cyclist they see.
> Same Roads, Same Rights, Same Rules
Ever hear the phrase "dead right"? That statement above may be true *in
principle*, but it isn't always true in fact.
Wayne Pein
> In article <JlS0f.90330$SL.22...@twister.southeast.rr.com>,
> Wayne Pein <wp...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>Not giving a shit when I delay motorists is different from not
>>respecting them. Like I said, I'd rather not delay them whether I drive
>>my bike or my car, but it happens and that is life. I similarly don't
>>worry that I have 40 grocery items and the person behind me has 20.
>
>
> Well, I see those as two very different situations. The worst that'll happen
> in the grocery store is that the person might huff and bump your ankle with
> their cart.
I don't run my life worrying about bullies it vehicles.
>
>
>>No, I don't see the difference. Just because a bicycle is narrow doesn't
>>mean it should get less space for the convenience of other road users.
>>As a lightweight and vulnerable user, bicyclists should be though of as
>>being as wide as any other vehicle to account for buffer.
>
>
> "Should be", but aren't. Fact.
I think it is best to work toward the ideal rather than accepting
mediocrity.
>
>
>>> To you, any delay of a motorist is inconsequential. Perhaps it isn't to
>>>the motorist. I'm aware that the effort that a car driver needs to put out
>>>to get back any time they may have lost when held up is pretty minor (like
>>>pressing their right foot down a little harder for a moment or two). But
>>>many people don't see it that way when they're driving. There's some people
>>>who see a bike in the lane the same way as a bull sees the proverbial red flag.
>>
>>That is their psychological problem, not mine. Why should we pander to
>>this?
>
>
> Because they might just decide to run your ass over due to their
> psychological problem??
Heck of a civil rights leader you would have made!
>
>
>>> Well, what can I say, you have an interesting attitude about it. As Kyle
>>>said, it's pretty self-righteous.
>>
>>Huh? I think you need to read what I wrote again.
>>
>>Further, Kyle has no clue, as others have posted. Paying taxes or other
>>fees is irrelevant to the use of the roads. If bicycle drivers had to
>>pay, they would. But since there is no requirement and no mechanism for
>>us to pay, then the fools ought to shut up.
>
>
> Maybe you should reread what I wrote. I wasn't addressing the tax issue. Your
> attitude about "my lane" was what I felt was self -righteous.
It IS my lane. As a legal vehicle operator. If you drive your car you
expect full lane space, yes?
Wayne
Wayne Pein
I'm an absolutist in that I believe it is my lane space. Most of the
time I graciously let motorists use it to pass me. Other times I don't,
and I don't have to justify why.
Wayne
Wayne Pein
>
>
> h squared wrote:
>
>> Wayne Pein wrote:
>>
>>
>>> As a lightweight and vulnerable user, bicyclists should be though of
>>> as being as wide as any other vehicle to account for buffer.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> but i don't know of any driver who thinks of a bike as being as wide
>> as any other vehicle. nobody has ever passed me as if i'm as wide as a
>> hummer or a city bus.
>>
>> heather
>>
>
> I once read where a reporter asked this woman why she bought an SUV.
> Her answer was that if she gets into an altercation with a car "I win".
> I doubt this woman will think of Wayne as "as wide as any other
> vehicle".
> If my daughter ever spoke like Wayne I'd take her bike away. But
> I'm guessing Wayne is more than 9 years old.
>
> Steve
>
>
>
I'd bet anything that Heather is wrong and that many motorists have
passed her with more than enough space to constitute her having width as
wide as a truck.
And Steve, I really don't think an ignorant woman buying an SUV for an
arms race is an appropriate person for you to model.
Wayne
Wayne Pein
I'm almost certain you have been passed by vehicle drivers who changed
lanes.
Wayne
Steven Bornfeld
Wayne Pein wrote:
>>
>>
>
>
> I'd bet anything that Heather is wrong and that many motorists have
> passed her with more than enough space to constitute her having width as
> wide as a truck.
>
> And Steve, I really don't think an ignorant woman buying an SUV for an
> arms race is an appropriate person for you to model.
>
> Wayne
You don't really think I'm modeling her do you? I'd just prefer not to
be a model for her hood ornament!
Steven Bornfeld
Wayne Pein wrote:
>>
>
>
> I'm almost certain you have been passed by vehicle drivers who changed
> lanes.
>
> Wayne
So have I! Many, many times, in fact! In fact, the vast, vast, vast
majority of times!
Only on very rare occasions have drivers thrown beer cans at me, had
passengers lean out the window with baseball bats, cut around me and
slam on the brakes.
I can, in fact, count on my fingers the number of incidents I've had
over 25 years or so of cycling. I've also been very lucky.
May you be so lucky as well!
Howard Kveck
Wayne Pein <wp...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
> Howard Kveck wrote:
>
> > In article <JlS0f.90330$SL.22...@twister.southeast.rr.com>,
> > Wayne Pein <wp...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
> >>That is their psychological problem, not mine. Why should we pander to
> >>this?
> >
> >
> > Because they might just decide to run your ass over due to their
> > psychological problem??
>
> Heck of a civil rights leader you would have made!
Ahh, so you're the cycling Martin Luther King. I see. You can't really
believe that your bike-lane use issue can in any way be equated with segregation
that was frequently violently enforced?
"The Wayne man's got a GOD complex..."
> > Your attitude about "my lane" was what I felt was self-righteous.
>
> It IS my lane. As a legal vehicle operator. If you drive your car you
> expect full lane space, yes?
Because it takes up most of the lane, yes. But if someone eases into the lane
I'm in, I do what I can to avoid a crash, be that slowing down, speeding up or
changing lanes. Here's a simple thing that I find works well for me: it isn't
"my lane", it's the lane I'm using.
h squared
> h squared wrote:
>
>> but i don't know of any driver who thinks of a bike as being as wide
>> as any other vehicle. nobody has ever passed me as if i'm as wide as a
>> hummer or a city bus.
>>
>> heather
>>
>
>
> I'm almost certain you have been passed by vehicle drivers who changed
> lanes.
>
> Wayne
it's true that on a multi lane road that someone may have changed lanes
to pass me and i wouldn't have even noticed if they did it from far
enough back. but nobody crosses the dotted yellow line separating the
two directions of traffic to pass me the way they would have if i was a
car. at most they partially cross it.
if every driver was changing lanes to give me as much room as a car, i
think i would notice it and would have already posted something before
this thread even started about how drivers were acting eerily courteous.
and plenty of people have passed me in the same lane on a 4 lane road
even- the worst one i told to ilan vardi once- i was skating down hill
on a road covered with patchy black ice, already fearing a bad crash.
there was only one car on the entire road , and instead of just pulling
into another lane, the driver first honked and then passed right next to
me (wtf was that about??)
you've never had any experience like that? cars always pass giving you a
6 foot buffer or more? no wonder you don't see the appeal of bike lanes.
heather
Kyle Legate
>
>
> I'm an absolutist in that I believe it is my lane space. Most of the
> time I graciously let motorists use it to pass me. Other times I don't,
> and I don't have to justify why.
>
by using more lane than you need, I won't have to justify why I don't
feel sympathy.
Stu Fleming
> "h squared" <clevistoreply...@comcast.net> wrote ...
>
>>nobody has ever passed me as if i'm as wide as a hummer or a city bus.
>
>
> After a few days in the backcountry I've had people pass me like that. I've
> always wondered why.
Hmmm. One of my colleagues suggested today that due to poor attendance
at lectures, he was going to start showering before lectures.
I suggested that to improve attendance I would start showering during
lectures...
Stu Fleming
> I once read where a reporter asked this woman why she bought an SUV.
> Her answer was that if she gets into an altercation with a car "I win".
> I doubt this woman will think of Wayne as "as wide as any other
SUV sales are in the toilet. Bicycles sales in US up 40%.
Interesting times.
Mark & Steven Bornfeld
What is the plural of "Prius"? Prii? Priuses?
Steve
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
Curtis L. Russell
<bornfe...@dentaltwins.com> wrote:
>Stu Fleming wrote:
>
>> Steven Bornfeld wrote:
>>
>>> I once read where a reporter asked this woman why she bought an
>>> SUV. Her answer was that if she gets into an altercation with a car "I
>>> win".
>>> I doubt this woman will think of Wayne as "as wide as any other
>>
>>
>> SUV sales are in the toilet. Bicycles sales in US up 40%.
>> Interesting times.
>
>
> What is the plural of "Prius"? Prii? Priuses?
>
>Steve
We have two and so far 'Priuses' seems to work fine. For some reason
my red Prius gets on average a mpg less than my wife's green one -
obviously the color makes a difference.
Ewoud Dronkert
> What is the plural of "Prius"? Prii? Priuses?
Prius cars.
--
E. Dronkert
Mark & Steven Bornfeld
We're starting to see a lot of Priuses here--and a lot of the NYC gov't
agencies are starting to use them. We also have a lot of the Con Ed and
other utility vans, as well as NYC transit buses running on lng.
Hopefully, that woman isn't so smug anymore.
Jim Flom
news:43447C60...@earthlink.net...
>
>
> h squared wrote:
>> Wayne Pein wrote:
>>
>>
>>> As a lightweight and vulnerable user, bicyclists should be though of as
>>> being as wide as any other vehicle to account for buffer.
>>
>>
>>
>> but i don't know of any driver who thinks of a bike as being as wide as
>> any other vehicle. nobody has ever passed me as if i'm as wide as a
>> hummer or a city bus.
>>
>> heather
>>
>
> I once read where a reporter asked this woman why she bought an SUV. Her
> answer was that if she gets into an altercation with a car "I win".
The key to winning traffic battles with SUVs is to drive big old junky cars,
then blow kisses when they back down.
JF
--
http://spaces.msn.com/members/flomblog/
Mark & Steven Bornfeld
>
>
> The key to winning traffic battles with SUVs is to drive big old junky cars,
> then blow kisses when they back down.
>
> JF
I keep thinking of that early Spielberg film, "Duel":
http://members.tripod.com/~DavidMann/facts.html
Jim Flom
>
> I keep thinking of that early Spielberg film, "Duel":
>
> http://members.tripod.com/~DavidMann/facts.html
Boy, the accolades and seminal influence attributed to it makes we wonder
how I ever got through life without it.
JF
--
http://spaces.msn.com/members/flomblog/
Mad Dog
> When I argue from the moral highground like Wayne, my wife says my
>epitaph will be "He died fighting for his right of way."
We all gotta die sometime. Ya may as well die fighting for something
worthwhile. Any kind of road rage is pretty bizarre terrain.
Driving to work today (yea, I wanted to bike but needed to carry in a few boxes
of heavy stuff) in dense traffic, I made a lane change with easily 15' of air
behind my rear bumper. You know the routine - you change lanes and the psycho
gets pissed and runs up on you and starts gesturing, flipping you off, etc. So
this dude goes ballistic and stalks along behind me waving his arms like a
windmill, with his bumper so close to mine the bumper slime is practically
having sex. So I ignored him, turned into the gas station to get raped by the
other asshole and the psycho follows me, calling me "cowboy". Not sure where he
got the cowboy bit, seeing as how I was wearing a Broncos jacket and Nike
running shoes, but I digress.
So he's yelling out his window how he's gonna kick my ass and asking me if I
wanna fight. So I'm just sort of standing there observing this nitwit,
wondering if he's packing and sizing him up, knowing this could get dirty.
Wanting every advantage, I stepped to the edge of the sidewalk curb so if he got
close, I'd have the drop. And he does, gets right in my face, asking me if I
want to fight. Man, morning bad breath is rude shit. I tell him no I don't
wanna fight but if he starts it, I'll play. That backed him off a bit and he
asked why I cut him off and I said I didn't. Then, get this, he says my driving
was confrontational and he's calling the cops. I didn't want to insult him
further, but I had to laugh. Here this twerp is parked in a handicapped spot
and although I found that to be appropriate, I think the cops would have taken
issue. After a few seconds on the phone, he switched gears and drove off,
yelling something out the window. He sure showed me a thing or two, but I don't
think it was what he intended. Just goes to show you that there are all kinds
of strange people out there and you don't really have to do anything wrong to
set one of them off.
Donald Munro
> We have two and so far 'Priuses' seems to work fine. For some reason
> my red Prius gets on average a mpg less than my wife's green one -
> obviously the color makes a difference.
According to computer models that factor in the effects of butterfly
farts in china, red has higher aerodynamic drag therefore never buy a red
frame or wear a red jersey.
Wayne Pein
> Wayne Pein wrote:
>> I'm almost certain you have been passed by vehicle drivers who changed
>> lanes.
>>
>
>
> it's true that on a multi lane road that someone may have changed lanes
> to pass me and i wouldn't have even noticed if they did it from far
> enough back. but nobody crosses the dotted yellow line separating the
> two directions of traffic to pass me the way they would have if i was a
> car. at most they partially cross it.
They do for me on a regular basis because I compel it.
>
> if every driver was changing lanes to give me as much room as a car, i
> think i would notice it and would have already posted something before
> this thread even started about how drivers were acting eerily courteous.
I never said every driver does. Just some.
>
> and plenty of people have passed me in the same lane on a 4 lane road
> even- the worst one i told to ilan vardi once- i was skating down hill
> on a road covered with patchy black ice, already fearing a bad crash.
> there was only one car on the entire road , and instead of just pulling
> into another lane, the driver first honked and then passed right next to
> me (wtf was that about??)
>
> you've never had any experience like that? cars always pass giving you a
> 6 foot buffer or more? no wonder you don't see the appeal of bike lanes.
Yes, like every other bicyclist who consistently rides, I have
encountered virtually every possible idiot except the one who tries to
purposefully hit me. No, motorists don't always give me 6' of buffer.
Some purposefully give less and at high speed. But the point of being
more assertive and using more lane space is that on average motorists
pass me better than if I ride on the edge and invite them to squeeze by.
Wayne
Wayne Pein
I feel synmpathy for you.
Wayne
Wayne Pein
>
>
> Wayne Pein wrote:
>>
>> And Steve, I really don't think an ignorant woman buying an SUV for an
>> arms race is an appropriate person for you to model.
>>
>> Wayne
>
>
> You don't really think I'm modeling her do you? I'd just prefer not
> to be a model for her hood ornament!
>
So you admit you are modeling your behavior for her?
Wayne
Wayne Pein
> Wayne Pein <wp...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>Heck of a civil rights leader you would have made!
>
>
> Ahh, so you're the cycling Martin Luther King. I see. You can't really
> believe that your bike-lane use issue can in any way be equated with segregation
> that was frequently violently enforced?
>
> "The Wayne man's got a GOD complex..."
Bicyclist segregation is enforced in places, and some motorists treat us
like shit.
>>It IS my lane. As a legal vehicle operator. If you drive your car you
>>expect full lane space, yes?
>
>
> Because it takes up most of the lane, yes. But if someone eases into the lane
> I'm in, I do what I can to avoid a crash, be that slowing down, speeding up or
> changing lanes. Here's a simple thing that I find works well for me: it isn't
> "my lane", it's the lane I'm using.
>
Semantic game. OK. When I'm on my bike or driving my car it's the lane
I'm using. In either case, I can choose with impunity how much of it I
use. That make you feel better?
Wayne
h squared
> I never said every driver does. Just some.
the quote i was replying to said neither of the above. it said:
"As a lightweight and vulnerable user, bicyclists should be though of as
being as wide as any other vehicle to account for buffer. "
i'm not disagreeing with that at all, and it's a very telling remark
because while cars should give a wide buffer, they don't on a regular
basis. this is why bike lanes are helpful to people like me. they give a
buffer that you can't rely on getting from a driver's good heart. i
don't like getting passed so close. i i ride to relax and stay in shape,
not to fight a war where i'm tensing for a blow from behind at any moment :(
> But the point of being
> more assertive and using more lane space is that on average motorists
> pass me better than if I ride on the edge and invite them to squeeze by.
i don't ride on the extreme right edge of any road lacking or only
having a narrow shoulder. but i still like the room a bike lane gives
me. i guess you're just choosing not to believe me about that. i'm not
asking you to lobby for bike lanes or to say that they're the best
choice always. i don't think every single street needs one. but what i'm
telling you over and over is that bike lanes have made riding much more
pleasant for me. i'm about to go ride the traffic hell that is
43rd-180th-carr road (the road of many names and many "ass clenching
moments" (thanks bjw)) and when i turn off of that unfriendly road onto
beautiful 140th with its bike lane, i'm going to once again be
happy/relieved to be there and bless the person who put the bike lane on
the road.
heather
Mark & Steven Bornfeld
>>
>
> So you admit you are modeling your behavior for her?
>
> Wayne
It's kinda like this, Wayne. I ride on the open road with an awareness
that there are other road users--other cyclists, pedestrians, motor
vehicles. I take my place on the road--as much as I need, and no more.
I ride predictably, so that other road users can see that I am
responsible. I will for instance move out toward the center line of a
road around a blind turn, and signal to following traffic when it is
safe for them to pass.
Other than that, I don't go out of my way to antagonize other road
users. Mostly this is just common courtesy and for the sake of safety.
It is however (and here is my admission) with the knowledge that there
are maniacs out there who are trying to kill me, as well as the
marginally-unbalanced driver who has a thing about cyclists because
someone like you is antagonizing them to prove a point.
Our positions on the issues at hand are very, very close. My problem
is with what I perceive your attitude to be. And if you've managed to
antagonize me, Howard, Kyle, and even Heather--people who are or should
be on YOUR side (for crying out loug) how do you think you might be
affecting the rest of humanity?
Wayne Pein
You do a lot of crazy assuming. For instance, you claim that I go out of
my way to antagonize other road users. Why would I do that? This is not
rational. If I were you, I would examine my previous posts to see where
your perceptions of me have strayed from reality.
Wayne
Wayne Pein
> Wayne Pein wrote:
>
>
>> I never said every driver does. Just some.
>
>
> the quote i was replying to said neither of the above. it said:
> "As a lightweight and vulnerable user, bicyclists should be though of as
> being as wide as any other vehicle to account for buffer. "
>
> i'm not disagreeing with that at all, and it's a very telling remark
> because while cars should give a wide buffer, they don't on a regular
> basis. this is why bike lanes are helpful to people like me. they give a
> buffer that you can't rely on getting from a driver's good heart. i
> don't like getting passed so close. i i ride to relax and stay in shape,
> not to fight a war where i'm tensing for a blow from behind at any
> moment :(
I'm guessing that you are comparing bike lane roads to narrow roads. Bzzzt.
The research has found that when bike lanes exist, motorists give less
of a buffer to bicyclists than when the road is the same width but
without the stripe. The reason is that a bicyclist in the lane induces
caution, whereas when behind a stripe the motorist has no need to move
over at all nor slow down.
Wayne
Mark & Steven Bornfeld
>
> You do a lot of crazy assuming. For instance, you claim that I go out of
> my way to antagonize other road users. Why would I do that? This is not
> rational. If I were you, I would examine my previous posts to see where
> your perceptions of me have strayed from reality.
>
> Wayne
>
I am glad to hear I have once again strayed from reality. I'll take it
on your word.
h squared
>> i'm not disagreeing with that at all, and it's a very telling remark
>> because while cars should give a wide buffer, they don't on a regular
>> basis. this is why bike lanes are helpful to people like me. they give
>> a buffer that you can't rely on getting from a driver's good heart. i
>> don't like getting passed so close. i i ride to relax and stay in
>> shape, not to fight a war where i'm tensing for a blow from behind at
>> any moment :(
>
>
> I'm guessing that you are comparing bike lane roads to narrow roads. Bzzzt.
>
> The research has found that when bike lanes exist, motorists give less
> of a buffer to bicyclists than when the road is the same width but
> without the stripe. The reason is that a bicyclist in the lane induces
> caution, whereas when behind a stripe the motorist has no need to move
> over at all nor slow down.
yes, i am comparing bike lane roads to narrower roads not capable of
"hosting" them. i would like the narrow road* to be widened and a bike
lane added to it. but if they just widened the road without adding a
lane, that would be almost as good for me, i'm happy for both
improvements, but i prefer to have cars banned from the right side of
the road if they make me queen and i get to decide.
and if the bike lane is wide enough, cars shouldn't have to move over at
all. that's the whole idea. (if cars still need to pull over to pass,
the bike lane is ridiculous) the bike lane on 140th is nice and wide,
and the lanes are nice and wide too. that way everyone can drive and
ride along at their own speed without having to worry about anyone else.
i don't want cars to move over for me; i want them to be far enough away
already. when they do move over and i'm in my own lane, i take it almost
as an insult that they think i'm not capable of riding in a straight
line. :) are you getting it that i like having my own lane? that at
least should strike a chord with you.
we'll never see eye to eye, wayne, at least admit that. it amuses me
that you won't admit or believe that some people find bike lanes
pleasant to ride in, but that's ok.
heather
*not every narrow road, just the scary fast ones.