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.

In article <M8udnb0RhIE8IYTVnZ2dnUVZ_jKdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> writes:

> 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

I'm sure you would.

> but it isn't worth the body damage.

A good bicyclist will be able to deal with
your malice and leave it behind, where it
belongs.

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

On 2008-05-03, Tom Keats <tkeats2005@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <M8udnb0RhIE8IYTVnZ2dnUVZ_jKdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> 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
>
> I'm sure you would.
>
>> but it isn't worth the body damage.
>
> A good bicyclist will be able to deal with
> your malice and leave it behind, where it
> belongs.

Damn, you're even a bigger asshole than I remember.

>> A good bicyclist will be able to deal with
>> your malice and leave it behind, where it
>> belongs.
>
> Damn, you're even a bigger asshole than I remember.
>
hmmmm, argument devolves into name calling. That CERTAINLY makes us all take
your side in it!

You betcha!

In article <E7udnfzDXanzK4HVnZ2dnUVZ_tHinZ2d@comcast.com>,
Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> writes:
> On 2008-05-03, Tom Keats <tkeats2005@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> In article <M8udnb0RhIE8IYTVnZ2dnUVZ_jKdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
>> Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>>> 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
>>
>> I'm sure you would.
>>
>>> but it isn't worth the body damage.
>>
>> A good bicyclist will be able to deal with
>> your malice and leave it behind, where it
>> belongs.
>
> Damn, you're even a bigger asshole than I remember.

At least I don't gleefully look for excuses to
cut bicycists (or anybody, for that matter) off.

Your car has gone to your head.


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

Pat wrote:

> hmmmm, argument devolves into name calling. That CERTAINLY makes us all take
> your side in it!

Given that Keats came up with the asinine response, that's all he's
going to get. To review, I riding a bicycle going downhill. A car
passes me (in a no passing zone), sees some pedestrians starting to run
across the street, hits the brakes, and I have to take evasive action to
avoid rear ending the vehicle that just passed me illegally. Yet Keats
claims that I was following too closely.

To me, blaming the cyclist in a situation like this is tantamount to
acting like an asshole. But if you want to take his side, then that's
your prerogative.

On May 3, 3:38 pm, "Pat" <in...@tmail.com> wrote:
> >> A good bicyclist will be able to deal with
> >> your malice and leave it behind, where it
> >> belongs.
>
> > Damn, you're even a bigger asshole than I remember.
>
> hmmmm, argument devolves into name calling. That CERTAINLY makes us all take
> your side in it!
>
> You betcha!

It's the only response that was appropriate. Certainly an
*intelligent* response to Mr. Keats' post wasn't possible.

My observation from reading RAD for years is that every time a thread
gets crossposted to rec.bicycles.whatever the cyclists are almost
universally assholes. Not an insult, just an observation.

For the record, I actually enjoy riding. It's just the attitude and
stupidity of the r.b.whatever posters that pushes my fur backwards.

nate

N8N aka Nate Nagel wrote:
> On May 3, 3:38 pm, "Pat" <in...@tmail.com> wrote:
>>>> A good bicyclist will be able to deal with
>>>> your malice and leave it behind, where it
>>>> belongs.
>>> Damn, you're even a bigger asshole than I remember.
>> hmmmm, argument devolves into name calling. That CERTAINLY makes us all take
>> your side in it!
>>
>> You betcha!
>
> It's the only response that was appropriate. Certainly an
> *intelligent* response to Mr. Keats' post wasn't possible.
>
> My observation from reading RAD for years is that every time a thread
> gets crossposted to rec.bicycles.whatever the cyclists are almost
> universally assholes. Not an insult, just an observation.
>
> For the record, I actually enjoy riding. It's just the attitude and
> stupidity of the r.b.whatever posters that pushes my fur backwards.
>
I find the cross-posted flame wars to be great fun. :)

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

On 2008-05-03, Pat <intex@tmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> A good bicyclist will be able to deal with
>>> your malice and leave it behind, where it
>>> belongs.
>>
>> Damn, you're even a bigger asshole than I remember.
>>
> hmmmm, argument devolves into name calling. That CERTAINLY makes us all take
> your side in it!
>
> You betcha!

Ahem. All he did was insult me, I responded in kind. Please grow a clue.

On 2008-05-03, N8N <njnagel@hotmail.com> wrote:

> My observation from reading RAD for years is that every time a thread
> gets crossposted to rec.bicycles.whatever the cyclists are almost
> universally assholes. Not an insult, just an observation.

Nate, I used to follow the bicycling news groups. They are assholes
within their own groups as well. Since I like automobiles *TOO* I was
the 'enemy'.

> For the record, I actually enjoy riding. It's just the attitude and
> stupidity of the r.b.whatever posters that pushes my fur backwards.

It's the same reason you'll won't see me at critical mass despite my
belief in bicyclists' right to use the road as any other vehicle user.

In article <SoydnQQNOr9aeYHVnZ2dnUVZ_t7inZ2d@comcast.com>,
Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> writes:
> On 2008-05-03, Pat <intex@tmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> A good bicyclist will be able to deal with
>>>> your malice and leave it behind, where it
>>>> belongs.
>>>
>>> Damn, you're even a bigger asshole than I remember.
>>>
>> hmmmm, argument devolves into name calling. That CERTAINLY makes us all take
>> your side in it!
>>
>> You betcha!
>
> Ahem. All he did was insult me, I responded in kind. Please grow a clue.

Go cut somebody off in traffic,
as you so apparently desire.

Heck, maybe it'll make you
feel good.

If that's not enough, you could
pull wings off flies.


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

On 2008-05-03, Tom Keats <tkeats2005@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <E7udnfzDXanzK4HVnZ2dnUVZ_tHinZ2d@comcast.com>,
> Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> writes:
>> On 2008-05-03, Tom Keats <tkeats2005@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> In article <M8udnb0RhIE8IYTVnZ2dnUVZ_jKdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
>>> Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> 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
>>>
>>> I'm sure you would.
>>>
>>>> but it isn't worth the body damage.
>>>
>>> A good bicyclist will be able to deal with
>>> your malice and leave it behind, where it
>>> belongs.
>>
>> Damn, you're even a bigger asshole than I remember.
>
> At least I don't gleefully look for excuses to
> cut bicycists (or anybody, for that matter) off.
> Your car has gone to your head.

Tom, you're an asshole because you are making these wild unfounded
insulting accusations.

I've never cut a bicyclist off, never run one off the road. I've blocked
some gutter passers though. Gutter passing is about the most
assholish thing one can do on a bicycle IMO. I have been cut off and
run off the road myself while bicycling. I even had one asshole
throw is car in reverse and back into me ON PURPOSE. I've had things
thrown at me from passing cars, a few hit me. I've had cops hassle me
for riding vehicularly. I had one asshole try to crush me between his
van and the curb because I *PASSED* him. (by using the *LEFT* lane) I
could go on, but that should be sufficent.

What you are doing is the typical car-hate that blinds you and others in
the newsgroups from which you post from. You hate anyone who has any
interest in motor vehicles. It doesn't matter that they are bicyclists
with what the general public thinks of as militant views regarding equal
right to use the roads. We're not 'pure' enough for you. That's why you
are lashing out. Someone cuts a person riding off and you fault him for
'following too close'? You're only doing it because the rider wasn't
'pure' enough for you. I tried to point out that being cut off makes
following distance not the choice of the person behind, but instead of
discussing it properly you decided to start making unfounded insulting
accusations. You were already insulting others when I entered, so I
guess it is of no surprise.

When you can turn off people like Arif, Nate, and myself, who not only
respect bicyclists' right to the road in full but practice it as
bicyclists ourselves, you're not doing bicycling any favors. Rather, you
are doing quite a bit of harm. That's just a little clue for you.

Now go back to your critical mass 'us' vs 'them' crap.

I've thought I should go for a bicycle ride downtown on critical
mass day and go on green when those asshats think they can stream
through red signals. I want to see if their heads asplode from the
mental conflict. Although they will probably decide to simply react with
violence against me. Because that's what's more important to people like
yourself Tom, the 'us' and 'them'. And I'll always be 'them' no matter
how much I ride.

Tom Keats wrote:
> In article <Pl4Tj.2431$NU2.2405@news01.roc.ny>,
> Arif Khokar <akhokar1234@wvu.edu> writes:

>> To me, blaming the cyclist in a situation like this is tantamount to
>> acting like an asshole. But if you want to take his side, then that's
>> your prerogative.

> You were a vehicle operator on the street. As such
> it is incumbent upon you to not rear-end anybody,
> regardless of your vehicle of choice.

I didn't rear end anyone that day.

> You car drivers whine & bitch & beef about bicyclists.

I don't unless those bicyclists are not following the rules of the road.

> Then when the shoe's on the other foot, we get your
> razmattazz.

Try posting in English.

> Surprise, surprise. You were caught out. You /let/
> yourself be caught out.

The total elapsed time from when the car got in front of me and when he
slammed the brakes was about 1 second. Contrary to what you may think,
I can't out accelerate a car on a bicycle.

> And that's because you applied
> car-driving mentality to bike riding.

Ok, why don't you tell me what I should have done differently in that
situation. I was riding at the speed limit (15 mph) and taking the lane
at the time. The car went into the opposing lane to pass me and cut in
front of me. Then he hits the brakes, as do I. I didn't rear-end him,
but I came quite close to doing so.

> It's eminently possible to not rear-end anybody,
> That's why the rear-endor is always at fault.

I take it you've never heard of the swoop and squat insurance scam.

Tom Keats wrote:
> 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.

They are not cognitively challenged, but rather deliberately behaving in
an anti-social manner. Why should anti-social behavior be rewarded?

> Your above statement sounds so Car Driver-ish.
>
People who violate the rules of society and common sense have no right
to complain if something bad happens as a consequence.

> 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.
>
Stop insinuating assumptions about my behavior that are not true.

>>>> 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.
>
I will take my chances as a pedestrian, thank you.

>>>> 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?
>
Yes. I would have landed on my side instead of my head. Experience
indicates that the former is much less damaging.

>>> 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.
>
Again, why reward the anti-social for their behavior?

>>> 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.
>
I (obviously) neither wrote or implied anything about retaliation. Why
should I be obstructed by the behavior of the anti-social?

> 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.
>
Again, where does this idea of retaliation come from? I wrote nothing of
the sort. Does Mr. Keats have an ax to grind here?

> This world needs more good vibes. Let's make 'em.
> Lead 'em in with your shoulder & your heart & your
> pedal-pumpin'.
>
> And screw ego.
>
What is the thread pitch and diameter of ego?

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

On 2008-05-03, Tom Keats <tkeats2005@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <SoydnQQNOr9aeYHVnZ2dnUVZ_t7inZ2d@comcast.com>,
> Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> writes:
>> On 2008-05-03, Pat <intex@tmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> A good bicyclist will be able to deal with
>>>>> your malice and leave it behind, where it
>>>>> belongs.
>>>>
>>>> Damn, you're even a bigger asshole than I remember.
>>>>
>>> hmmmm, argument devolves into name calling. That CERTAINLY makes us all take
>>> your side in it!
>>>
>>> You betcha!
>>
>> Ahem. All he did was insult me, I responded in kind. Please grow a clue.
>
> Go cut somebody off in traffic,
> as you so apparently desire.
> Heck, maybe it'll make you
> feel good.
> If that's not enough, you could
> pull wings off flies.

Tom does it again. If anyone here cuts people off in traffic it's the
person (that's you Tom) who thinks that the person who got cut off is
'following too close'.

On 2008-05-03, Tom Keats <tkeats@2005hotmail.com> wrote:

> You were a vehicle operator on the street. As such
> it is incumbent upon you to not rear-end anybody,
> regardless of your vehicle of choice.

So you are saying that it is perfectly acceptable to cut other people
off because it's their responsibility to avoid hitting you.

On May 3, 5:41 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
wrote:
> N8N aka Nate Nagel wrote:
>
> > On May 3, 3:38 pm, "Pat" <in...@tmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> A good bicyclist will be able to deal with
> >>>> your malice and leave it behind, where it
> >>>> belongs.
> >>> Damn, you're even a bigger asshole than I remember.
> >> hmmmm, argument devolves into name calling. That CERTAINLY makes us all take
> >> your side in it!
>
> >> You betcha!
>
> > It's the only response that was appropriate. Certainly an
> > *intelligent* response to Mr. Keats' post wasn't possible.
>
> > My observation from reading RAD for years is that every time a thread
> > gets crossposted to rec.bicycles.whatever the cyclists are almost
> > universally assholes. Not an insult, just an observation.
>
> > For the record, I actually enjoy riding. It's just the attitude and
> > stupidity of the r.b.whatever posters that pushes my fur backwards.
>
> I find the cross-posted flame wars to be great fun. :)
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
> The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

Eh, it might have been entertaining the first couple times, but
everyone posts the same crap, the same people get involved, and the
same insults get slung. Perhaps I'd find them more entertaining if I
just brushed up on some more creative invective?

The weird thing here is it would appear that the current round started
with a cyclist *defending* an asshat motorist, and blaming a RAD
regular for his behavior on a bike... I'm so confused as to which
side I'm supposed to be on.

nate

N8N aka Nate Nagel wrote:
> On May 3, 5:41 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> N8N aka Nate Nagel wrote:
>>
>>> On May 3, 3:38 pm, "Pat" <in...@tmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> A good bicyclist will be able to deal with
>>>>>> your malice and leave it behind, where it
>>>>>> belongs.
>>>>> Damn, you're even a bigger asshole than I remember.
>>>> hmmmm, argument devolves into name calling. That CERTAINLY makes us all take
>>>> your side in it!
>>>> You betcha!
>>> It's the only response that was appropriate. Certainly an
>>> *intelligent* response to Mr. Keats' post wasn't possible.
>>> My observation from reading RAD for years is that every time a thread
>>> gets crossposted to rec.bicycles.whatever the cyclists are almost
>>> universally assholes. Not an insult, just an observation.
>>> For the record, I actually enjoy riding. It's just the attitude and
>>> stupidity of the r.b.whatever posters that pushes my fur backwards.
>> I find the cross-posted flame wars to be great fun. :)
>>
>
> Eh, it might have been entertaining the first couple times, but
> everyone posts the same crap, the same people get involved, and the
> same insults get slung. Perhaps I'd find them more entertaining if I
> just brushed up on some more creative invective?
>
Good plan.

A Usenet flame war is hardly started until the thread exceeds 200 posts.

> The weird thing here is it would appear that the current round started
> with a cyclist *defending* an asshat motorist, and blaming a RAD
> regular for his behavior on a bike... I'm so confused as to which
> side I'm supposed to be on.
>
You will have to develop a split personality (especially since you are
becoming a RBT regular).

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

.. . . "Because they have two gas pedals."

- Colin James,, B.C. Canada.
--
zk

In article <01c870e8-e14c-46df-9159-84d729fba980@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
N8N <njnagel@hotmail.com> writes:

> The weird thing here is it would appear that the current round started
> with a cyclist *defending* an asshat motorist,

I never defended the cutter-offer.

> and blaming a RAD
> regular for his behavior on a bike...

Arif's behaviour was that of a car driver, except he
wasn't driving a car, he was driving a bicycle. He
got into a circumstance and comes away whining about it
to the world like he's some sort of martyr.


> I'm so confused as to which
> side I'm supposed to be on.

Be on the side of the sociable and civilized
street/road ~sharer~.

That's what I do, and it works for me. That
doesn't mean I act subserviently when on the
street. It also doesn't mean I act like a
self-centred, CarHeaded egomaniac.

To tell you the truth, I like & respect you.
I also like & respect Brent P.

I have no fondness nor respect for whining bitches
who get into scrapes they could have easily avoided.


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

In article <lloq14p911rh1liuhso2v8v9jhdfthqeon@4ax.com>,
Zoot Katz <zootkatz@operamail.com> writes:

> . . . "Because they have two gas pedals."
>
> - Colin James,, B.C. Canada.

Heh :-)

One on the right, one on the left.

Life can be good, and better than
so many spoiled people realize.


cheers,
Tom

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