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.

tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) said in
rec.autos.driving:

>> 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.

Not quite. Riding a bike on the sidewalk is legal (in California);
driving a car on the sidewalk is not. In some spots around here, there
are even signs which INSTRUCT pedalcyclists to ride on the sidewalk.
--
"It's little sh*ts like you that take my time away from my fiancee and
loved ones. F*CK YOU."
- Carl Rogers, 12/30/2006
Message-ID: <1167515577.811497.149300@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>

In article <ofenc3dc5kpb1qqor1o13uvfg4cdislanc@4ax.com>, Scott in SoCal wrote:
> tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) said in
> rec.autos.driving:
>
>>> 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.
>
> Not quite. Riding a bike on the sidewalk is legal (in California);
> driving a car on the sidewalk is not. In some spots around here, there
> are even signs which INSTRUCT pedalcyclists to ride on the sidewalk.

Well riding and driving on the sidewalk is illegal most places in the
chicago area. And I was talking about walking the bicycle and pushing the
car anyway. As far as galt's comment goes, the places one can actually
ride from street to sidewalk are quite limited. Generally there are curbs
in the way (and on some streets I ride a drainage ditch) which require
dismounting and walking the bike.

On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 02:50:26 GMT, Arif Khokar <akhokar1234@wvu.edu>
wrote:

>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.

WTF! Drivers should slow for pedestrians standing at a crosswalk.
Pedestrians have the right-of-way at and in crosswalks.

Pedestrians are not permitted to step in front of a vehicle that is
approaching too fast and too close for it to stop.

But, if you hit them in the crosswalk you're still to blame because
you should have slowed long before they stepped off the curb.

Instead, you caged shit-wpes speed up to deny a pedestrian waiting
for a break in traffic their opportunity to cross.

Jay-walkers will slow you down more if you have to stop and explain
why you hit them. It's better to slow down before you do hit them.
--
zk

Zoot Katz wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 02:50:26 GMT, Arif Khokar <akhokar1234@wvu.edu>
> wrote:

>> 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.

> WTF! Drivers should slow for pedestrians standing at a crosswalk.
> Pedestrians have the right-of-way at and in crosswalks.

No, only in crosswalks. Where I ride and drive, pedestrians just step
out less than 20 feet in front of a vehicle going 25 mph. They think
they have the right-of-way pulling stunts like that, but when they get
hit by a car, or a cyclist, they learn otherwise.

> Pedestrians are not permitted to step in front of a vehicle that is
> approaching too fast and too close for it to stop.

Unfortunately, they do just that here. While riding, it's easy enough
to just slip by them, but I have to slam on the brakes when driving.

> But, if you hit them in the crosswalk you're still to blame because
> you should have slowed long before they stepped off the curb.
>
> Instead, you caged shit-wpes speed up to deny a pedestrian waiting
> for a break in traffic their opportunity to cross.

When I'm a pedestrian, I wait for traffic to pass before starting to
cross. I don't think it's too much for them to do the same for me when
I'm riding, or driving. I mean, is it too much to ask pedestrians,
cyclists and car drivers to wait for traffic to clear before crossing or
turning?

> Jay-walkers will slow you down more if you have to stop and explain
> why you hit them. It's better to slow down before you do hit them.

One time I was riding down hill. A car comes up behind me, passes me,
comes in front of me and then slams the brakes for a couple of
jay-walkers (jay-runners is more like it). I was damn lucky to avoid
rear ending the car. That's why I can't stand pedestrians to can't be
bothered to follow the rules of the road and those who are too important
to wait for a gap in traffic.

On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 05:19:04 GMT, Arif Khokar <akhokar1234@wvu.edu>
whined:

>That's why I can't stand pedestrians to can't be
>bothered to follow the rules of the road and those who are too important
>to wait for a gap in traffic.

That's why I detest you caged scum who figure they're too important
to take their foot off the throttle long enough to create that gap
for another road user.
--
zk

Zoot Katz going off on a non-sequitur while creatively snipping context
ranted:
> On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 05:19:04 GMT, Arif Khokar <akhokar1234@wvu.edu>
> wrote:

>> That's why I can't stand pedestrians to can't be bothered to follow the
>> rules of the road and those who are too important to wait for a gap in
>> traffic.

> That's why I detest you caged scum who figure they're too important
> to take their foot off the throttle long enough to create that gap
> for another road user.

[Restoring context]
>> One time I was *riding* down hill. A car comes up behind me, passes me,
>> comes in front of me and then slams the brakes for a couple of jay-walkers
>> (jay-runners is more like it). I was damn lucky to avoid rear ending the
>> car. That's why I can't stand pedestrians to can't be bothered to follow
>> the rules of the road and those who are too important to wait for a gap
>> in traffic.

> That's why I detest you caged scum ... <blah blah blah>

I wasn't the "cager" in that case, you idiot. Second, it's the
responsibility for those who don't have the right of way to wait for a
suitable gap in traffic before proceeding. That means that cyclists and
drivers waiting to turn or cross an intersection must wait for traffic
to clear before proceeding. It means that pedestrians must wait till
there's enough room for vehicles to stop (at least 100 feet) before
crossing. It means that pedestrians should only cross in marked
crosswalks or at intersections with unmarked crosswalks. It means that
drivers and cyclists can't just mow down pedestrians within a crosswalk.

Arif Khokar wrote:
> Zoot Katz going off on a non-sequitur while creatively snipping
> context ranted:
>> On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 05:19:04 GMT, Arif Khokar <akhokar1234@wvu.edu>
>> wrote:
>
>>> That's why I can't stand pedestrians to can't be bothered to
>>> follow
>>> the rules of the road and those who are too important to wait for
>>> a
>>> gap in traffic.
>
>> That's why I detest you caged scum who figure they're too important
>> to take their foot off the throttle long enough to create that gap
>> for another road user.
>
> [Restoring context]
>>> One time I was *riding* down hill. A car comes up behind me,
>>> passes me, comes in front of me and then slams the brakes for a
>>> couple of jay-walkers (jay-runners is more like it). I was damn
>>> lucky to avoid rear ending the car. That's why I can't stand
>>> pedestrians to can't be bothered to follow the rules of the road
>>> and those who are too important to wait for a gap in traffic.
>
>> That's why I detest you caged scum ... <blah blah blah>
>
> I wasn't the "cager" in that case, you idiot. Second, it's the
> responsibility for those who don't have the right of way to wait for
> a
> suitable gap in traffic before proceeding. That means that cyclists
> and drivers waiting to turn or cross an intersection must wait for
> traffic to clear before proceeding. It means that pedestrians must
> wait till there's enough room for vehicles to stop (at least 100
> feet) before crossing. It means that pedestrians should only cross
> in marked crosswalks or at intersections with unmarked crosswalks.
> It means that drivers and cyclists can't just mow down pedestrians
> within a crosswalk.

Laws differ. I was surprised in Quebec to see people, even cab
drivers, stop for pedestrians standing on the sidewalk adjacent to a
crosswalk. Apparently the law there is that you stop for pedestrians
who just _look_ like they are going to use the crosswalk, if there is
no signal. In the US it's generally different, you stop for
pedestrians actually _in_ the crosswalk but if they haven't started
crossing yet then they have to wait.


--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

J. Clarke wrote:

> Laws differ. I was surprised in Quebec to see people, even cab
> drivers, stop for pedestrians standing on the sidewalk adjacent to a
> crosswalk. Apparently the law there is that you stop for pedestrians
> who just _look_ like they are going to use the crosswalk, if there is
> no signal. In the US it's generally different, you stop for
> pedestrians actually _in_ the crosswalk but if they haven't started
> crossing yet then they have to wait.

I think in most cases the law states that vehicles have to /yield/ to
pedestrians within a crosswalk. Some states do require one to stop
instead of yield. The difference is that if one is required to stop,
then all cars in all lanes have to stop regardless of where the
pedestrian is in the crosswalk (even if they've already passed the lane
you're in). That's not the case in states that require one to yield
instead.

> Laws differ. I was surprised in Quebec to see people, even cab
> drivers, stop for pedestrians standing on the sidewalk adjacent to a
> crosswalk. Apparently the law there is that you stop for pedestrians
> who just _look_ like they are going to use the crosswalk, if there is
> no signal. In the US it's generally different, you stop for
> pedestrians actually _in_ the crosswalk but if they haven't started
> crossing yet then they have to wait.

Drivers shouldn't have to stop when there's no need. If the law is
going to require a stop for a pedestrian who "looks like" he is going
to use the crosswalk, then it needs to be illegal for a pedestrian to
"look like" that unless he actually crosses.

Zoot Katz wrote:
> ...
> WTF! Drivers should slow for pedestrians standing at a crosswalk.
> Pedestrians have the right-of-way at and in crosswalks....

In theory I agree with Zoot. In practice, I do slow or stop for
pedestrians waiting to cross if there is no following motorized traffic.

One problem in practice is many pedestrians (at least in the US) do not
expect anyone to stop for them, so they will not even step out into the
street unless you come to a complete stop and waive them across.

Typically, if one stops, the following dung brain at the wheel will
either pass to the right in the parking lane (usually just as the
pedestrian starts to cross) or to the left unless oncoming traffic is
VERY CLOSE. On a multi-lane road, everyone will pass in the other lane,
so forget about it.

Therefore, I only stop for pedestrians waiting on the curb if there is
no close following traffic OR if I can position myself to block both the
parking lane and the travel lane to something as wide as an automobile.
(Let them honk and flip me off.)

Similarly, on multi-lane roads, I try to pass cyclists as far to the
right as possible while NOT leaving enough space to the right for a
motor vehicle to pass if there is traffic behind me. A full lane change
to the left lane means a dung brain will pass me on the right and (if
lucky) brush pass the cyclist or hit the cyclist (if unlucky).

Of course, the real solution would be to get the dung brains off the
road, but that is not politically feasible.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia

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

In article <ZcXyi.14446$B25.4428@news01.roc.ny>,
Arif Khokar <akhokar1234@wvu.edu> writes:
> Zoot Katz going off on a non-sequitur while creatively snipping context
> ranted:
>> On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 05:19:04 GMT, Arif Khokar <akhokar1234@wvu.edu>
>> wrote:
>
>>> That's why I can't stand pedestrians to can't be bothered to follow the
>>> rules of the road and those who are too important to wait for a gap in
>>> traffic.
>
>> That's why I detest you caged scum who figure they're too important
>> to take their foot off the throttle long enough to create that gap
>> for another road user.
>
> [Restoring context]
>>> One time I was *riding* down hill. A car comes up behind me, passes me,
>>> comes in front of me and then slams the brakes for a couple of jay-walkers
>>> (jay-runners is more like it). I was damn lucky to avoid rear ending the
>>> car.

You were following too closely.

>>>That's why I can't stand pedestrians to can't be bothered to follow
>>> the rules of the road and those who are too important to wait for a gap
>>> in traffic.
>
>> That's why I detest you caged scum ... <blah blah blah>
>
> I wasn't the "cager" in that case, you idiot.

Actually, you were. You brought your driver's
mentality to bear, despite your choice of vehicle.
You were following too closely. You behaved like
a motor vehicle operator, and it almost got you
in trouble.

> Second, it's the
> responsibility for those who don't have the right of way to wait for a
> suitable gap in traffic before proceeding. That means that cyclists and
> drivers waiting to turn or cross an intersection must wait for traffic
> to clear before proceeding.

That's what non-suicidal, rational people do.
Despite popular opinion, people who aren't operating
motor vehicles aren't /that/ idiotic.

> It means that pedestrians must wait till
> there's enough room for vehicles to stop (at least 100 feet) before
> crossing.

What's the stopping distance for typical POV in
a 30 MPH urban speed limit? Assuming it's not
a 20 MPH school/playground/park/hospital zone,
and it's not raining or foggy, and the driver
isn't hurtling a fat-assed heavy motor vehicle
(like a cement truck, RV or SUV) down the street?

> It means that pedestrians should only cross in marked
> crosswalks or at intersections with unmarked crosswalks. It means that
> drivers and cyclists can't just mow down pedestrians within a crosswalk.

It means /everybody/ should be prepared to give
somebody else their fair chance. To be sociable,
and to understand that poor sucker waiting at the
intersection might need to get somewhere more
importantly than you do.

I cross intersections very carefully. Y'know why?
I don't trust you. I have absolutely no confidence
in drivers' abilities to deal with traffic situations.
And I am not alone.

But I can read you like a 4-page pamphlet.

I'll stay as much as I can outa your way.
I don't want people like you killing me out
of your mere selfishness.

Try not to rear-end anybody with your car.
Maybe you should stop following so close.

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

Tom Keats wrote:
> In article <ZcXyi.14446$B25.4428@news01.roc.ny>,
> Arif Khokar <akhokar1234@wvu.edu> writes:
>>
>> Second, it's the
>> responsibility for those who don't have the right of way to wait for a
>> suitable gap in traffic before proceeding. That means that cyclists and
>> drivers waiting to turn or cross an intersection must wait for traffic
>> to clear before proceeding.
>
> That's what non-suicidal, rational people do.
> Despite popular opinion, people who aren't operating
> motor vehicles aren't /that/ idiotic.
>
Ever ride your bicycle on a college campus? Yes, people are that
idiotic, and rush into the street in the middle of the block without
looking. That is why I preferred to ride a 'bent, so I would not fly
over the bars and land on my head if one of the idiots took me out (been
there, done that, earlier in life).

Many of the cyclists are not any better. I have been hit a couple of
times while walking by sidewalk riders - one overtaking from behind
(clipped by the end of the handlebars) and one who was coming around a
blind corner hugging the building wall. I was recently almost hit by a
fixie poseur who was making a right turn on red without stopping or
yielding.

Notice that none of these incidents involve the dreaded steel and glass
cage.

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

In article <fvc981$elc$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
> Tom Keats wrote:
>> In article <ZcXyi.14446$B25.4428@news01.roc.ny>,
>> Arif Khokar <akhokar1234@wvu.edu> writes:
>>>
>>> Second, it's the
>>> responsibility for those who don't have the right of way to wait for a
>>> suitable gap in traffic before proceeding. That means that cyclists and
>>> drivers waiting to turn or cross an intersection must wait for traffic
>>> to clear before proceeding.
>>
>> That's what non-suicidal, rational people do.
>> Despite popular opinion, people who aren't operating
>> motor vehicles aren't /that/ idiotic.
>>
> Ever ride your bicycle on a college campus?

Yes.

> Yes, people are that
> idiotic, and rush into the street in the middle of the block without
> looking. That is why I preferred to ride a 'bent, so I would not fly
> over the bars and land on my head if one of the idiots took me out (been
> there, done that, earlier in life).

I've /never/ run into anyone with my uprights.

> Many of the cyclists are not any better. I have been hit a couple of
> times while walking by sidewalk riders - one overtaking from behind
> (clipped by the end of the handlebars) and one who was coming around a
> blind corner hugging the building wall

I don't particularly like habitual
sidewalk cycling. That said, I've
never been hit by a sidewalk rider.

> I was recently almost hit by a
> fixie poseur who was making a right turn on red without stopping or
> yielding.

Car drivers do that a lot. I guess he was
a car driver on a bike. There are all too
many of those.

> Notice that none of these incidents involve the dreaded steel and glass
> cage.

I notice that you lived to tell the tale.

I guess you're sharp enough to survive all
these dreaded onslaughts.

Heck, I survive & thrive well enough with
my ~normal~ bikes.

I don't need to look to other configs
to make-up for my judgmental mistakes.


cheers,
Tom

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

On 2008-05-01, Tom Keats <tkeats2005@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <ZcXyi.14446$B25.4428@news01.roc.ny>,
> Arif Khokar <akhokar1234@wvu.edu> writes:
>> Zoot Katz going off on a non-sequitur while creatively snipping context
>> ranted:
>>> On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 05:19:04 GMT, Arif Khokar <akhokar1234@wvu.edu>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> That's why I can't stand pedestrians to can't be bothered to follow the
>>>> rules of the road and those who are too important to wait for a gap in
>>>> traffic.
>>
>>> That's why I detest you caged scum who figure they're too important
>>> to take their foot off the throttle long enough to create that gap
>>> for another road user.
>>
>> [Restoring context]
>>>> One time I was *riding* down hill. A car comes up behind me, passes me,
>>>> comes in front of me and then slams the brakes for a couple of jay-walkers
>>>> (jay-runners is more like it). I was damn lucky to avoid rear ending the
>>>> car.
>
> You were following too closely.

Exactly how does a person choose a following distance when cut off?

>> I wasn't the "cager" in that case, you idiot.
>
> Actually, you were. You brought your driver's
> mentality to bear, despite your choice of vehicle.
> You were following too closely. You behaved like
> a motor vehicle operator, and it almost got you
> in trouble.

Um, if he were operating with a 'driver's mentality' he would have
blocked the pass and there wouldn't have been an issue.

> I'll stay as much as I can outa your way.
> I don't want people like you killing me out
> of your mere selfishness.

Damn, you're still quite the asshole.

Here's a clue, idiot drivers think that a bicyclist 'goes away' as soon
as they have passed the bicyclist.

> Try not to rear-end anybody with your car.
> Maybe you should stop following so close.

Maybe you should grow a clue. I'd offer to demonstrate cutting you off
and nailing the brakes in a manner that would cause you to rear end my
car but it isn't worth the body damage.

On May 1, 5:48 am, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote:
> In article <ZcXyi.14446$B25.4...@news01.roc.ny>,

(stuff)

why are you resurrecting a nine month old thread that sucked nine
months ago?

nate

On Thu, 1 May 2008 02:48:37 -0700, tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats)
wrote:

>>>> One time I was *riding* down hill. A car comes up behind me, passes me,
>>>> comes in front of me and then slams the brakes for a couple of jay-walkers
>>>> (jay-runners is more like it). I was damn lucky to avoid rear ending the
>>>> car.
>
>You were following too closely.

Let me ask you a question.

In your opinion, how much time is reasonable to allow for a driver to
re-establish his space cushion once another driver violates it?
--
Proud to be a wreckless driver.

Tom Keats wrote:
> In article <ZcXyi.14446$B25.4428@news01.roc.ny>,
> Arif Khokar <akhokar1234@wvu.edu> wrote 8 months ago:

>>>> One time I was *riding* down hill. A car comes up behind me, passes me,
>>>> comes in front of me and then slams the brakes for a couple of jay-walkers
>>>> (jay-runners is more like it). I was damn lucky to avoid rear ending the
>>>> car.

> You were following too closely.

I guess this person is the group idiot posting from r.b.m.

Zoot Katz wrote:
>
> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 17:57:05 -0400, Nate Nagel <njnagel@roosters.net>
> wrote:
>
> >It's only the consequences to the various parties when things go pear
> >shaped that are any different... You'd think that that would make
> >cyclists *more* aware than motorists, but sadly that does not seem to be
> >the case, at least in my area.
>
> Bicyclists _are_ more aware of their surroundings than are motorists.

So the guy who zips through a stop sign on a bicycle in front of an
oncoming car knows the car is there? The last one I saw was just lucky
the driver was quick on the brakes.

These guys didn't notice that they were passing a truck on the right and
didn't understand the consequences:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/330848_fatal08.html


This one hit a parked garbage truck:
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930821&slug=1717007

Here's one where the cyclist survived unscathed:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/283319_busfatal31.html

> I've never heard a biker say, "I didn't see you" after some stunned
> scud jockey has run into them.

No. Usually the cyclist doesn't say much anymore when they run a red
light through traffic.

--
Paul Hovnanian paul@hovnanian.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Procrastinators: The leaders for tomorrow.

Tom Keats wrote:
> In article <fvc981$elc$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
>> Tom Keats wrote:
>>> In article <ZcXyi.14446$B25.4428@news01.roc.ny>,
>>> Arif Khokar <akhokar1234@wvu.edu> writes:
>>>> Second, it's the
>>>> responsibility for those who don't have the right of way to wait for a
>>>> suitable gap in traffic before proceeding. That means that cyclists and
>>>> drivers waiting to turn or cross an intersection must wait for traffic
>>>> to clear before proceeding.
>>> That's what non-suicidal, rational people do.
>>> Despite popular opinion, people who aren't operating
>>> motor vehicles aren't /that/ idiotic.
>>>
>> Ever ride your bicycle on a college campus?
>
> Yes.
>
>> Yes, people are that
>> idiotic, and rush into the street in the middle of the block without
>> looking. That is why I preferred to ride a 'bent, so I would not fly
>> over the bars and land on my head if one of the idiots took me out (been
>> there, done that, earlier in life).
>
> I've /never/ run into anyone with my uprights.
>
I refuse to slow down for idiots.

>> Many of the cyclists are not any better. I have been hit a couple of
>> times while walking by sidewalk riders - one overtaking from behind
>> (clipped by the end of the handlebars) and one who was coming around a
>> blind corner hugging the building wall
>
> I don't particularly like habitual
> sidewalk cycling. That said, I've
> never been hit by a sidewalk rider.
>
Maybe you have been in a less crowded area.

>> I was recently almost hit by a
>> fixie poseur who was making a right turn on red without stopping or
>> yielding.
>
> Car drivers do that a lot. I guess he was
> a car driver on a bike. There are all too
> many of those.
>
The guy is lucky he avoided me, since he would likely have landed on his
face. Hitting a pedestrian while riding an upright usually is much worse
for the rider.

>> Notice that none of these incidents involve the dreaded steel and glass
>> cage.
>
> I notice that you lived to tell the tale.
>
The one incident with an upright involved several children running out
in front of me while being screened from view by a parked vehicle. I was
able to slow to less than 15 mph before the collision with an estimated
70 pound child (I probably weighed about 105 pounds at the time). The
result was a nasty scalp wound for me, a bent fork on my Peugeot, and a
minor scratch on the idiotic child's knee.

Had I been riding a proper recumbent, the outcome would have been much
more in my favor.

> I guess you're sharp enough to survive all
> these dreaded onslaughts.
>
Hey, if a moron on a bike wants to run into me when I am a pedestrian
and have the right-of-way, I will lead with my shoulder.

> Heck, I survive & thrive well enough with
> my ~normal~ bikes.
>
> I don't need to look to other configs
> to make-up for my judgmental mistakes.
>
How is having others violate one's right-of-way a judgmental mistake?

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

In article <fvdu8e$gnq$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:

>>>>> Second, it's the
>>>>> responsibility for those who don't have the right of way to wait for a
>>>>> suitable gap in traffic before proceeding. That means that cyclists and
>>>>> drivers waiting to turn or cross an intersection must wait for traffic
>>>>> to clear before proceeding.
>>>> That's what non-suicidal, rational people do.
>>>> Despite popular opinion, people who aren't operating
>>>> motor vehicles aren't /that/ idiotic.
>>>>
>>> Ever ride your bicycle on a college campus?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>> Yes, people are that
>>> idiotic, and rush into the street in the middle of the block without
>>> looking. That is why I preferred to ride a 'bent, so I would not fly
>>> over the bars and land on my head if one of the idiots took me out (been
>>> there, done that, earlier in life).
>>
>> I've /never/ run into anyone with my uprights.
>>
> I refuse to slow down for idiots.

I refuse to run-over anybody. Even the cognitively challenged.
Your above statement sounds so Car Driver-ish.

Sometimes we all have to slow down. Sometimes we all
have to speed up. Nobody has to hurt anybody just because
they're operating a certain kind of vehicle.

>>> Many of the cyclists are not any better. I have been hit a couple of
>>> times while walking by sidewalk riders - one overtaking from behind
>>> (clipped by the end of the handlebars) and one who was coming around a
>>> blind corner hugging the building wall
>>
>> I don't particularly like habitual
>> sidewalk cycling. That said, I've
>> never been hit by a sidewalk rider.
>>
> Maybe you have been in a less crowded area.

Heh.

>>> I was recently almost hit by a
>>> fixie poseur who was making a right turn on red without stopping or
>>> yielding.
>>
>> Car drivers do that a lot. I guess he was
>> a car driver on a bike. There are all too
>> many of those.
>>
> The guy is lucky he avoided me, since he would likely have landed on his
> face. Hitting a pedestrian while riding an upright usually is much worse
> for the rider.

It's bad all around.

>>> Notice that none of these incidents involve the dreaded steel and glass
>>> cage.
>>
>> I notice that you lived to tell the tale.
>>
> The one incident with an upright involved several children running out
> in front of me while being screened from view by a parked vehicle. I was
> able to slow to less than 15 mph before the collision with an estimated
> 70 pound child (I probably weighed about 105 pounds at the time). The
> result was a nasty scalp wound for me, a bent fork on my Peugeot, and a
> minor scratch on the idiotic child's knee.
>
> Had I been riding a proper recumbent, the outcome would have been much
> more in my favor.

How so? Would there have been less hurtin' of people
all around?

>> I guess you're sharp enough to survive all
>> these dreaded onslaughts.
>>
> Hey, if a moron on a bike wants to run into me when I am a pedestrian
> and have the right-of-way, I will lead with my shoulder.

If you say so.

>> Heck, I survive & thrive well enough with
>> my ~normal~ bikes.
>>
>> I don't need to look to other configs
>> to make-up for my judgmental mistakes.
>>
> How is having others violate one's right-of-way a judgmental mistake?

The decision to retaliate is always a mistake.

Try not to retaliate. That just emits more bad vibes
into the world. There are usually more artful solutions
than BF&I. Often the solution is the realization that one
is one of many mistake-prone people.

This world needs more good vibes. Let's make 'em.
Lead 'em in with your shoulder & your heart & your
pedal-pumpin'.

And screw ego.


cheers,
Tom

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