Re: OT: joining the ranks of two wheelers again

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

Peter Cole wrote:
> The thing I find ironic about local residents speeding in their own
> neighborhood is their desire to move out to "quieter" towns, not
> realizing that they are themselves a large part of the problem. Over the
> years, I have seen those "quieter" communities get much less so as the
> influx brings the very things they were trying to escape -- and so it
> goes, with people moving farther out to try to escape -- themselves.

This is not just short-sightedness, it shows the elitism that really
motivates all the Sierra Clubbers and NIMBYs. What they're really saying
is, "now that *I've* moved in, this neighborhood and this metro area don't
ever need to grow one bit more."

But they're wrong. Those who come after you are every bit as entitled to
move in as you -- and therefore throughput IS what's important.

In article <1185471659.437080.269330@x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
<frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jul 25, 10:26 am, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T.
>Russotto) wrote:
>> <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >But is it possible to blip the throttle at 45 mph? Hmm. Let's see -
>> >I bet it could be done if the driver first stepped hard on that far-
>> >left pedal. You know - the clutch? Does your car have one?
>>
>> It could be done, but it wouldn't make the distinctive sound, which is
>> mostly from the _closing_ of the throttle. ...
>
>It's fascinating that you think you know exactly what sound was being
>made, without having been there, and without my giving a detailed
>description!

The phrase "blip the throttle" evokes a certain (aural) image. If
you'd said "rev the engine", it would evoke a different image. If you
don't understand the phrases you use, you probably shouldn't use them.

[personal attack nonsense deleted]

>Just leave the rest of us alone. We're not impressed by your car,
>your speed, your noise, or your fantasies.

You're certainly impressed with the speed and the noise of the cars
going by your house.

Why don't you go sit on your porch, yell at everyone driving by, and
telling kids to get off your lawn? Hmm, maybe you are, and you're
just posting here via wi-fi between cars.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

On Jul 18, 7:13 am, Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
> > In article <BJWdndWe9IuO3ADbnZ2dnUVZ_sSmn...@comcast.com>, Peter Cole wrote:
> >> Brent P wrote:
> >>> In article <wuidnaknntjxngDbnZ2dnUVZ_jqdn...@comcast.com>, Peter Cole wrote:
>
> >>>> Outside of rather arbitrary and inconsistent right of way rules, bicycle
> >>>> riding is very much on the same legal footing as walking.
> >>> Um, no. Same as a vehicle. Walking right of way rules are inferior unless
> >>> you enjoy being confined to sidewalks and crosswalks.
>
> >> As I said *outside* of ROW.
>
> > Not that I saw. Outside right of way rules is outside the rules anyway so
> > it makes no sense.
>
> >>>> Motor vehicle
> >>>> operation has huge liability issues, so it is reasonable to be heavily
> >>>> regulated by the state -- unlike bikes.
>
> >>> None of those regulations have anything to do with right of way.
>
> >> No, they don't, that's a separate topic.
>
> > Yet you try to bring them in.
>
> Only to try to (unsuccessfully, apparently) make the point that driving
> vehicles requires huge piles of laws that have no parallel (or
> relevance) to cycling or walking.
>
> There is no reason for ROW rules to have to be the same for cars and
> bikes. There are a lot of sensible reasons why they shouldn't.
>
> >>>> The one-size-fits-all "vehicular" model for bicycling is naive and
> >>>> unnecessarily restrictive.
>
> >>> Imagine for a moment that bicycles were dominate vehicle on the roads.
> >>> Your concept of right of way simply doesn't scale. The result would be
> >>> chaos. I have had many near collisions and a few collisions with
> >>> bicycle riders like you while I was biking. The concept you ride under only
> >>> 'works'sorta kinda because automobiles are the most used vehicle on the
> >>> road and are following, for the most part predictable rules. Replace them
> >>> with vehicles operating under your rules and the whole thing falls apart.
>
> >> Why don't we try it and see?
>
> > See China. Even worse, now people in China are now driving in the same
> > manner. It's Chaos. Your concepts do not scale.
>
> From all accounts, China worked pretty well until they threw cars into
> the mix. The only thing these problems point out is that to mix cars &
> bikes you've got to do a better job of regulating cars, particularly
> with respect to speeding and ROW violations. It's the cars that are the
> problem, not the bikes. China's auto infrastructure is awful. We can,
> and should, do much better.

If you think Chinese traffic worked pretty well before they threw cars
into the mix you've never been stuck at your third cycle of the light
because there are too many bikes to make it through, nor have you had
a head on collision with someone riding the wrong way, and you are
happy with a top speed of 15kph.

China's auto infrastructure could use a hell of a lot of work. I sort
of wish that if they were going to build separated bike lanes that
they'd keep the cars off of them and maintain them to same standards
as the roads. It would also be nice if shoulder high barriers
actually deterred pedestrians from crossing the street, that would
make things move a lot more smoothly. And I wish desperately for the
concept of parking garage to sufficiently emerge so that cars will
stop parking (and driving) on the sidewalks.

But, overall, with the exception of driving skills (imagine if every
driver on the road had been licensed for under 5 years and most of
them under 2 years) I have a more favorable impression of traffic in
Chinese cities than I do in American cities. At least I did once I
got over being afraid to cross the street here.

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 15:38:23 -0400, Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com>
wrote:

>dgk wrote:
>
>
>>
>> I really take issue with the whole "I'm equivalent to a car" biking
>> attitude. I understand it, but I disagree. I'm not a car. I can't go
>> as fast, I can't accelerate as fast, and I can't do as much damage
>> when something goes wrong.
>>
>> I run lights, but never without being very careful. I run stop signs,
>> but not without being careful. I'm not a car. I do not follow all the
>> rules of cars unless I'm driving one. And then I go 70 if everyone
>> else is doing so.
>
>You should be thankful that you have the rights of a driver of a vehicle
>rather than the rights of a pedestrian when cycling. Further, you should
>stop disparaging slow vehicles. Lastly, just because "everyone else" is
>breaking the law doesn't excuse it, or you following suit.
>
>Wayne

Actually I am in the middle. I have the right to ride on the right of
the road. I have the right to ride on bike lanes, which motor vehicles
do not have. So, we all agree I am not a motor vehicle.

In article <1185376143.179840.253740@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
Art Harris <n2ah@hotmail.com> writes:
> Tom Keats wrote:
>> What you /will/ experience is socially inept drivers who
>> think they can haul-up beside you on the stop lines, instead
>> of queueing in an orderly manner behind you, as they would
>> for any other vehicle -- and then hang a right turn from your
>> left side, right in front of you as you try to go straight.
>
> That's why I usually "take the lane" when approaching a stop sign, or
> if I'm the first one at a red light.

On unstriped minor streets I've actually had drivers haul up
to me on my left -- on the wrong side of the street, when I
do that. The last time it happened, I was positioning myself
at the stop sign for a left turn (off eastbound 39th Ave, onto
northbound Ontario St, Vancouver, BC.) Of course the driver
shot straight through. He was just pretending I was in his way.
Some pitiable, depraved/deprived souls are like that. Oh, well.


cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 16:55:37 -0700, tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats)
wrote:

>In article <1185376143.179840.253740@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> Art Harris <n2ah@hotmail.com> writes:
>> Tom Keats wrote:
>>> What you /will/ experience is socially inept drivers who
>>> think they can haul-up beside you on the stop lines, instead
>>> of queueing in an orderly manner behind you, as they would
>>> for any other vehicle -- and then hang a right turn from your
>>> left side, right in front of you as you try to go straight.
>>
>> That's why I usually "take the lane" when approaching a stop sign, or
>> if I'm the first one at a red light.
>
>On unstriped minor streets I've actually had drivers haul up
>to me on my left -- on the wrong side of the street, when I
>do that. The last time it happened, I was positioning myself
>at the stop sign for a left turn (off eastbound 39th Ave, onto
>northbound Ontario St, Vancouver, BC.) Of course the driver
>shot straight through. He was just pretending I was in his way.
>Some pitiable, depraved/deprived souls are like that. Oh, well.

Both east and westbound on 67th Ave @ Oak St., when I've taken the
lane with enough clearance to allow right-turning drivers room for
their right-turn, they've continued straight across the intersection
passing me on my right.

It usually involves their accelerating like drag racers only to cut
me off, or chicken out, before they run into the parked cars on the
other side of Oak.

There's evidence enough to convince me that people's brains turn in
to shit when they're driving.
--
zk

Zoot Katz wrote:
> ...
> There's evidence enough to convince me that people's brains turn in
> to shit when they're driving.

Nah, these people fecal quality brain function at other times also.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Tom Keats wrote:

Welcome back, we hardly missed you, you were gone so shortly. ;)

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

In article <46b3c027$0$11761$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>,
"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> writes:
> Tom Keats wrote:
>
> Welcome back, we hardly missed you, you were gone so shortly. ;)

Hey, it's good to see you, too :-)

So, tell me -- are you 'n Ed sock puppets of each other?

Nah. Some things, like spiders, are best left undisturbed
in the dark corners.

Anyways, while Wayne Pein and nemuaZ lliB and Frank are
having their circular, li'l, go-nowhere arguments about whether
bike lanes replace the supposed need for h*lm*ts or whatever
their is-too/is-not dialogue is about, might as well really
talk about real riding, right?

Maybe talking about real riding might even get r.b.m back
up to it's expected standard.


cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

Tom Keats wrote:
> In article <46b3c027$0$11761$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>,
> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> writes:
>> Tom Keats wrote:
>>
>> Welcome back, we hardly missed you, you were gone so shortly. ;)
>
> Hey, it's good to see you, too :-)
>
> So, tell me -- are you 'n Ed sock puppets of each other?

Back when Mr. Ed first started posting to Usenet, he only posted to
alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent and did not spray rapid-fire insults
willy-nilly. It was not obvious that he lived under a bridge, until I
engaged him in a discussion about Mess-O-Potamia that went to 500+
posts, with each of us posting more than 200 times to the thread. Since
then, Mr. Ed seems to be obsessed with getting me to respond to his
posts, since I am gratuitously mentioned in many of them.

> Nah. Some things, like spiders, are best left undisturbed
> in the dark corners.
>
> Anyways, while Wayne Pein and nemuaZ lliB and Frank are
> having their circular, li'l, go-nowhere arguments about whether
> bike lanes replace the supposed need for h*lm*ts or whatever
> their is-too/is-not dialogue is about, might as well really
> talk about real riding, right?

So how well does your bicycle cross "speed humps"? ;)

> Maybe talking about real riding might even get r.b.m back
> up to it's expected standard.

Isn't real riding what Fabrizio Mazzoleni does? ;)

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

In article <46b3d907$0$16360$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>,
"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> writes:

>> Anyways, while Wayne Pein and nemuaZ lliB and Frank are
>> having their circular, li'l, go-nowhere arguments about whether
>> bike lanes replace the supposed need for h*lm*ts or whatever
>> their is-too/is-not dialogue is about, might as well really
>> talk about real riding, right?
>
> So how well does your bicycle cross "speed humps"? ;)

Just great. Sometimes I even catch a li'l air, if I ain't
worried about stuff getting flung outa the milk crate.
Mostly I just post 'em. I'll admit so sometimes being
a little unsure when riding over some of them no-hands.

But we have a tract of speed humps alongside where a
major city park, baseball stadium, community centre,
smaller public park, and public (elementary/primary
school) are all in a line along Ontario Street. It's
a longish stretch of what should be a 30 kmh (20 MPH)
zone. Drivers didn't respect that speed limit, so the
speed humps had to be installed. Motor vehicles can
comfortably traverse the humps at 30 kmh. Any more than
that, and they bottom-out, or stuff goes flying out of
their pick-up truck boxes. Heh.

Now, Ontario St is a designated bike route, and is
highly used by cyclists. Drivers tend to ignore
the speed limit and the speed humps in their earnest
desire to zoom past the cyclists. And then they get
their come-uppance on the speed humps. If a rider
wants to have a li'l mischievious fun, he can actually
lure cars into speeding into those speed humps.
Watch those headlights flicker.

I see a lot of drivers go over three of 'em, and then
decide to turn off, and take their chances on the
nearest arterial (Main St) where they belong anyways.
But so many streets that cross Main St are equipped
with cyclists' push-button traffic lights, there's a
traffic light at practically every block. The drivers
have the choices of putting up with the speed humps on
Ontario, the red lights on Main St, or getting around
by bike themselves.


>> Maybe talking about real riding might even get r.b.m back
>> up to it's expected standard.
>
> Isn't real riding what Fabrizio Mazzoleni does? ;)

My only connection with Fabs is locality. He can have
the UCI or whatever points.


cheers,
Tom

--
"Are you reeling in the years ..."
-- Steely Dan
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

Tom Keats <tkeats2005@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Anyways, while Wayne Pein and nemuaZ lliB and Frank are
> having their circular, li'l, go-nowhere arguments about whether
> bike lanes replace the supposed need for h*lm*ts or whatever
> their is-too/is-not dialogue is about, might as well really
> talk about real riding, right?

Blimey, are we back on that one trick pony again? Personally, I just
got back from the lower hells (Philadelphia and Cincinnati)[1] and
really enjoyed hopping on my bike and meandering around the city. I
sort of had a destination, but realized most of the way there that I
didn't have enough cash for a Banh Mi and an Avocado shake.

> Maybe talking about real riding might even get r.b.m back
> up to it's expected standard.

It was a nice day for a ride, high sixties, low seventies and plenty of
sunshine. I also popped off to the grocery store a little bit ago and
picked up provisions. My load was pretty light on the Xtracycle since
I'm just shopping for myself this week.

[1] Philly has it's charms, but Cincinnati is a waste of space and it
was even hotter than Philadelphia was.

ObSig: Well, they didn't lose my luggage, but they did cancel my flight
and make me lose a day. Meh, it could always have been worse.

--
Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org
"We take your bags and send them in all directions."
-In a Copenhagen airline ticket office

Zoot Katz:
> There's evidence enough to convince me that people's brains turn in
> to shit when they're driving.

I'm convinced that the brains of the average American (sic) turns to
shit long before they get their drivers license.

--
F ools &
B umbling
I diots

Arif Khokar wrote:
> John David Galt wrote:
>
>>> I'll tell ya what, though -- when you're on a bike, everybody else
>>> just pathologically /has/ to get ahead of you, no matter how fast
>>> you're going, or how unsafe passing you will be, or if you're in a
>>> school or playground zone. It's, like, ignominy to so many people,
>>> to ever be seen or caught dead behind a bicycle. And this is the
>>> case not only for drivers, but other, fellow riders as well.
>
>> It's just common sense to be unwilling to remain behind a
>> fundamentally slower road user. Cyclists who won't respect this need
>> to be taught their place.
>
> Then why are drivers willing to stay behind other slower road users such
> as tractors or construction equipment, or sightseers driving
> significantly less than the posted limit? When I encounter them, I pass
> them on the left, whether I'm driving, or riding. Why that solution
> hasn't occurred to you is a mystery to me.

Drivers expect those slowpokes, also, to get out of our way when they can.
The catch is that cyclists have that ability much more often because
they're smaller and capable of moving onto sidewalks when called for.
I don't think it's at all unreasonable to expect that of them.

Zoot Katz wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 10:53:42 -0700, John David Galt
> <jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote:
>
>>>>> and especially when forcing the same car to pass you
>>>>> multiple times as a result)
>>> What do drivers want to do -- get to their destinations
>>> (which they will do anyways,) or just be ahead of
>>> everybody else?
>>>
>>> Putting everybody in the RV mirror doesn't necessarily
>>> get you there any more effectively. As long as they're
>>> not making you repeatedly touch the brake pedal, why
>>> worry about it?
>> Because the kind of cyclists who do this regard it as drivers' problem
>> if they get stuck behind the cyclist on a narrow section of the street
>> as a direct result. Those cyclists are asking to be run off the road.
>>
>>> I'll tell ya what, though -- when you're on a bike,
>>> everybody else just pathologically /has/ to get ahead
>>> of you, no matter how fast you're going, or how unsafe
>>> passing you will be, or if you're in a school or playground
>>> zone. It's, like, ignominy to so many people, to ever
>>> be seen or caught dead behind a bicycle. And this is the
>>> case not only for drivers, but other, fellow riders as well.
>> It's just common sense to be unwilling to remain behind a fundamentally
>> slower road user. Cyclists who won't respect this need to be taught
>> their place.
>
> I'm not about to be intimidated off my roads by the sociopathic
> spewage of some scud monkey with a hard-on.
>
> Has any one of you tough talking cowards ever considered what it is
> about being inside a car that causes you to be so hostile toward
> everyone else on the road?

We're not. Only toward those who needlessly block our own movement.

John David Galt wrote:

> Arif Khokar wrote:

>Then why are drivers willing to stay behind other slower road users such
>>as tractors or construction equipment, or sightseers driving
>>significantly less than the posted limit? When I encounter them, I pass
>>them on the left, whether I'm driving, or riding. Why that solution
>>hasn't occurred to you is a mystery to me.
>
>
> Drivers expect those slowpokes, also, to get out of our way when they can.
> The catch is that cyclists have that ability much more often because
> they're smaller and capable of moving onto sidewalks when called for.
> I don't think it's at all unreasonable to expect that of them.

Expect bicycle drivers. Get used to it; other competent drivers have.
It is unreasonable to expect bicycle drivers to get out of your way, and
to use sideWALKS.

Wayne

John David Galt wrote:

> Zoot Katz wrote:

>>Has any one of you tough talking cowards ever considered what it is
>>about being inside a car that causes you to be so hostile toward
>>everyone else on the road?
>
>
> We're not. Only toward those who needlessly block our own movement.

Bicycle drivers are not "needlessly" blocking your movement. If you
don't like going our speed in our lane, pass us in another lane. That's
what competent drivers do. If you are incapable of this, stop driving.

Wayne

In article <faf7r7$vdc$2@blue.rahul.net>, John David Galt wrote:
> Arif Khokar wrote:
>> John David Galt wrote:
>>
>>>> I'll tell ya what, though -- when you're on a bike, everybody else
>>>> just pathologically /has/ to get ahead of you, no matter how fast
>>>> you're going, or how unsafe passing you will be, or if you're in a
>>>> school or playground zone. It's, like, ignominy to so many people,
>>>> to ever be seen or caught dead behind a bicycle. And this is the
>>>> case not only for drivers, but other, fellow riders as well.
>>
>>> It's just common sense to be unwilling to remain behind a
>>> fundamentally slower road user. Cyclists who won't respect this need
>>> to be taught their place.
>>
>> Then why are drivers willing to stay behind other slower road users such
>> as tractors or construction equipment, or sightseers driving
>> significantly less than the posted limit? When I encounter them, I pass
>> them on the left, whether I'm driving, or riding. Why that solution
>> hasn't occurred to you is a mystery to me.
>
> Drivers expect those slowpokes, also, to get out of our way when they can.
> The catch is that cyclists have that ability much more often because
> they're smaller and capable of moving onto sidewalks when called for.
> I don't think it's at all unreasonable to expect that of them.

It's about as unreasonable as asking you to push your car on the
sidewalk.

John David Galt wrote:
> Arif Khokar wrote:

>> Then why are drivers willing to stay behind other slower road users such
>> as tractors or construction equipment, or sightseers driving
>> significantly less than the posted limit? When I encounter them, I pass
>> them on the left, whether I'm driving, or riding. Why that solution
>> hasn't occurred to you is a mystery to me.

> Drivers expect those slowpokes, also, to get out of our way when they can.

Then those drivers are incompetent. A real driver can just go around
them in short order.

In any case, I have to deal with cars who decide to stop for pedestrians
who haven't even stepped into the crosswalk, or pedestrians who decide
to cross where they please. Those incompetent drivers slow me down
whether I'm riding or driving, yet I don't expect them to drive up onto
sidewalks to get out of my way. If I want to go faster, I pass them at
the first opportunity.

On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 10:35:54 -0700, scud scum, John David Galt
<jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> bared his ass:

>> Has any one of you tough talking cowards ever considered what it is
>> about being inside a car that causes you to be so hostile toward
>> everyone else on the road?
>
>We're not. Only toward those who needlessly block our own movement.

Your attitude demonstrates exactly why cager scum will never get it.

You're in each others way all the time just by insisting your own
movement takes priority over that of other road users.

You constantly cut each other off or refuse to yield. Drivers
consciously and maliciously impede each other with their cars all the
time..

I've heard of shoot-outs, fisticuffs and shouting matches over a
parking spot.

Yeah, you scud monkeys rule the jungle except you're powerless in
your coffins while you're blocking all those other slaves too.

Bikes, they just keep on rolling while you're left stewing in your
own brain-addling fumes.

Park it, sucker.
--
zk