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.

frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jul 16, 1:56 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P)
> wrote:
>
>>In article <mf-dnVjhHMkvMAbbnZ2dnUVZ_hOdn...@comcast.com>, Peter Cole wrote:
>>
>>>Oh, get over yourself. Nobody takes those laws seriously other than a
>>>priggish, sanctimonious minority of bike riders. Live large, what are
>>>they going to do, revoke your license? Heh.
>
>
> They could certainly ticket a cyclist. It happens.
>
>
>>I obey the vehicle code to the letter when bicycling. Why? A few reasons.
>>
>>1) I don't want to give a motorist any excuses. If he screws with me,
>>hurts me, whatever there is nothing I did wrong in any shape or form.
>>
>>2) When a cop decides to hassle me, I know he has no legal grounds to do
>>anything to me.
>>
>>3) Nothing pisses off a bicyclist hating motorist that following the
>>vehicle code to the letter.
>
>
> I guess there was a time I followed the laws to the letter, but I've
> relaxed a bit about stop signs now. I don't necessarily do the mini-
> track-stand I used to. Some I take at about 5 mph.
>
> But understand, I'm talking about stop signs where there's perfect
> visibility and absolutely nobody else to stop for - in fact, nobody
> else in sight. These occur in many suburban neighborhoods, and at
> quiet intersections out in the country. Even then, I'll put on a
> show, by slowing and conspicuously looking both ways. That's in case
> someone is watching. If there is
>
> Overall, my cycling behavior is better than most motorists'
> behavior.
>
> And for those car fans complaining about bicyclists flouting the law:
> I live across the street from a stop sign in a residential
> neighborhood. I estimate that less than 2/3 of the motorists actually
> stop. The rest roll through, with some going through at over 15 mph,
> by my guess.
>
> Hell, I've been stopped at a red light on my bike, and had a motorist
> pull up along side, look both ways, and run the red.
>
> And those 3000 pound vehicles are much more deadly than a 30 pound
> bike. Those operators need to be held to a higher standard.
>
> - Frank Krygowski
>

I agree with most of your post, but I don't necessarily agree that
motorists need to be held to a higher standard. As long as *both*
cyclists and motorists are using the same roads, both need to be equally
vigilant of the other, to prevent untoward incidents from happening.

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. I have only seen one cycle-car incident
(actually just a bent up bike in the middle of the road and a lot of cop
cars) but I see a LOT of sloppy riding.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Peter Cole wrote:
> Luigi de Guzman wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 15:30:07 -0400, Peter Cole wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I'm not "driving". That's the whole point.
>>
>>
>> You're operating a vehicle on the public rights-of-way. You might be
>> lighter, more efficient, and more ecologically sound, but you're still
>> "driving," as far as the statute applies to you.
>
>
> No you're not, you're riding a bike.

Which is a vehicle being operated on a public right-of-way. The two
statements are not contradictory.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Arif Khokar wrote:
> dgk wrote:
>
>> Bikes actually wait in lines of cars? How odd. I don't think that I've
>> ever seen anyone do that.
>
>
> I do.
>
>> I thread my way to the front, and if the right front car is turning
>> (which can often be deduced by either a turn signal or the way the
>> front wheels are pointing), I wait on the left of that car for the
>> light to change.
>
>
> And the driver may not see you if he decides to change lanes for
> whatever reason. Riding like one drives is much safer.
>
>> This way I can get to work in my normal hour and twenty minutes (15
>> miles). If I actually waited in line at every light (thus pissing off
>> the car behind me who wants to go fast when the light changes)
>
>
> I'm on a mountain bike, I'm overweight, yet I'm still capable of keeping
> up with traffic when it starts moving after the light changes (at least
> up to 20 mph. If cars want to go fast, then they can change lanes, or
> pass you after you clear the intersection.
>
>> I also go through red lights
>
>
> The law doesn't make exemptions for cyclists regarding traffic lights.
> IMO, if you don't typically run red lights while driving, you certainly
> shouldn't do it while riding.

And if you *do* typically run red lights while driving, you might want
to reconsider your driving style :P

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

In article <YvydnQB5ZbTAfwbbnZ2dnUVZ_vShnZ2d@comcast.com>, Peter Cole wrote:
> Brent P wrote:

>> I don't like gutter passers and other sorts of illegal lane usage so I
>> don't do them.

> It's not illegal here (MA). Are you sure it's illegal where you are?

Lane splitting certainly, gutter passing only when there is considerably
more space than that typically present.

>>> I thread my way to the front, and if the right front car is turning
>>> (which can often be deduced by either a turn signal or the way the
>>> front wheels are pointing), I wait on the left of that car for the
>>> light to change.

>> If I were driving I would find that behavior irritating, needing to pass
>> a bicyclist multiple times because he threaded up to the front of a
>> queue. Because I would find it irritating, I don't do it myself when
>> biking. When I've encountered bicyclists like this, I don't pass them
>> with a full lane the second time. The third time I make NO effort to give
>> them space.

> That sounds pretty menacing.

Oh they still have more space than they had when they gutter passed me.
If they aren't going to behave as a vehicle, I see no reason to treat
them as one.

> In stop & go traffic, it's pretty hit or
> miss whether or not the cars you pass ever pass you again, sometimes you
> repeatedly pass each other, sometimes not. Even if you do repeatedly
> pass, why should the motorist be entitled to irritation? It makes as
> much sense for me to be irritated about having to filter forward again.

I've passed the same bicyclist upwards of four times in normal city
traffic because they gutter pass to the front of the queue.

>> I out accelerate most cars (as typically driven) from a dead stop. If they
>> are going to need to pass me, it will be when they catch up to me
>> becausewhich is usually no closer than the far side of the intersection
>> and sometimes a couple of blocks. It's the car in front of me that
>> slows me down, driving or biking.

> Right, and I see no more reason to be less irritated by a car in my way
> than a bike.

That's why they get a full lane when I pass. But if they decide not to
play nice and gutter pass, well then I'll treat them accordingly.

> In urban scenes I can usually flow through traffic much
> faster than the traffic is moving. I see no reason to park myself behind
> a tailpipe.

Funny. When I am driving or riding I am faster than the gutter passers.
If we take the same route I will always end up repassing them.

In article <rvmdnRycgqJVQAbbnZ2dnUVZ_sK3nZ2d@comcast.com>, Peter Cole wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>
>> You haven't lived until you've made a driver angry by preventing him from
>> kissing up his front bumper to the rear bumper of a car in front of you.
>> :)

> Sure, that's one of the problems with "vehicular" cycling -- it really
> pisses some drivers off.

Better that dead from riding stupidly.

> I'm convinced that many drivers think that it's
> illegal for cyclists to be on the road at all, while others think it's
> tolerable only if you never impede their progress (give unlimited
> unilateral right of way). It's pointless to argue with these people, I
> know, I've tried.

And I won't feed their nonsense by behaving the way they see all
bicyclists.

Brent P? wrote:
> In article <rvmdnRycgqJVQAbbnZ2dnUVZ_sK3nZ2d@comcast.com>, Peter Cole wrote:
>> Brent P wrote:
>>
>>> You haven't lived until you've made a driver angry by preventing him from
>>> kissing up his front bumper to the rear bumper of a car in front of you.
>>> :)
>
>> Sure, that's one of the problems with "vehicular" cycling -- it really
>> pisses some drivers off.
>
> Better that dead from riding stupidly.
>
>> I'm convinced that many drivers think that it's
>> illegal for cyclists to be on the road at all, while others think it's
>> tolerable only if you never impede their progress (give unlimited
>> unilateral right of way). It's pointless to argue with these people, I
>> know, I've tried.
>
> And I won't feed their nonsense by behaving the way they see all
> bicyclists.

How can we cyclists expect to have a RIGHT to use the road if we ignore
the rules of the road? Violating traffic laws on a bicycle just
convinces more motorists that we do not belong on the roads.

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

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

Arif Khokar wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article <lp0e7f.n01.ln@vcn.bc.ca>, Tom Keats wrote:
>
>>> Stick a pair of Cheng Shin 26x1.50 slick tires on there, and you'll
>>> be laffin'. Switching from knobbies to street slicks feels like
>>> being shot out of a cannon. Cheng Shins have a rep for providing an
>>> harsh ride; that'll just teach you to ride light on the saddle.
>
>> If those are the tires I am thinking of, they are cheapies that I've
>> always had good luck with.. although never used them on anything wider
>> or smaller diameter than 27x1.25
>
> I should get narrower tires then (26 x 2.0). At least they have smooth
> tread instead of the typical mountain bike tread.

Narrow tires only have lower rolling resistance if their inflation
pressure is higher.

For comfort and low rolling resistance, consider a tire like the Big
Apple: <http://schwalbetires.com/node/61/ok>.

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

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

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.

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

You're locked inside a rolling coffin. You can't hear or see what's
going on outside. You've barely any sense of whether you're going
uphill or down.

You sit there on a plushy leather couch, with your sippy drinks,
snacks, cell phone, music, DVD and video game players to keep you
distracted from the mind numbingly boring act of driving a car.

Driving is so boring you poor stunned and drugged fux are going
around on auto-pilot most of the time.
--
zk

Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net> said in rec.autos.driving:

>Motorists are just plain annoying -- they're always in the way, clogging
>up the roads and forming long lines at intersections. Why should I be
>forced to wait for them?

<sniff, sniff> I smell a Troll.

>To add insult to injury, motorists fantasize that they "pay for the
>roads", even though their road hog related contributions only add up to
>around 60%

Which is still 60% more than pedalcyclists pay (unless their bikes
take some sort of fuel that is subject to a fuel tax). Now I *know*
you're a troll. Back under the bridge with ya.

>Ooooh -- I startled one! Made him drop his Mcmuffin. Boo Hoo.

*PLONK!*
--
MFFYCam Videos Galore:
http://www.geocities.com/mffycam/
http://slothkills.blip.tv/

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

>>> I find gutter passing bad form wether I'm biking or driving.
>>>
>> Just pass the whole line on the left -- much faster, usually safer.
>
>When legal, I do.

I regularly pass long lines of stopped cars on their right. Since I am
in a separate lane (i.e. the bike lane), it's not a "gutter pass" nor
is it illegal. Yet another big advantage of a bike lane over a wide
curb lane.
--
MFFYCam Videos Galore:
http://www.geocities.com/mffycam/
http://slothkills.blip.tv/

dgk <dgk@somewhere.com> said in rec.autos.driving:

>>> A bicyclist threads his way forward along the right hand side of the
>>> queue, next to the curb, until he is parallel to me at the right side
>>> of my lane. As the light goes green, this dipshit proceeds STRAIGHT
>>> across the intersection, directly crossing my intended turn line.
>
>Forcing you to wait a whole three seconds.

The duration of the wait is irrelevant. It's still MFFY to make
someone wait while you steal their right-of-way, even if it's 3
microseconds.
--
MFFYCam Videos Galore:
http://www.geocities.com/mffycam/
http://slothkills.blip.tv/

"Zoot Katz" <zootkatz@operamail.com> wrote in message
news:n6eo93p77ofhlb452moak1jks4fcg5bjok@4ax.com...
> 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.

Most of the time, perhaps, though I'll make a distinction between "serious"
cyclists and those who amble around town on sidewalks cluelessly. I can't
make heads nor tails of whats going through their heads a lot of the time,
whether I'm on foot, on bike, or in a car.

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

Except for the ones who get hit from behind. Did Gooserider see the truck
that hit him before he got knocked silly?

>
> You're locked inside a rolling coffin. You can't hear or see what's
> going on outside. You've barely any sense of whether you're going
> uphill or down.
>
> You sit there on a plushy leather couch, with your sippy drinks,
> snacks, cell phone, music, DVD and video game players to keep you
> distracted from the mind numbingly boring act of driving a car.
>
> Driving is so boring you poor stunned and drugged fux are going
> around on auto-pilot most of the time.

I enjoy driving and biking and would really hate to give up either one. I
admit I find myself on auto-pilot a bit sometimes when driving (the vast
desert on I-10 between LA and Phoenix comes to mind); but I will at times do
the same when biking -- when being lost in the moment of breathing, pushing,
basically being "in the zone." I don't think that makes me unsafe in either
case because there are places and times you can kind of just be in the
moment -- under the right conditions, of course.

brink

"N8N" <njnagel@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1184606450.912317.324610@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 16, 12:20 pm, Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Nate Nagel wrote:
>> > Tom Keats wrote:
>> >> In article <Odumi.7354$rR.1...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
>> >> Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS <xeton2...@yahoo.com>
>> >> writes:
>>
>> >>> Nate Nagel wrote:
>>
>> >>>> I sincerely hope that I don't start doing the things that I see
>> >>>> bikers doing on the roads all the time that pisses me off while
>> >>>> driving (mostly blowing stop signs,
>>
>> >> The so-called "California stop" is not exclusively
>> >> a cyclists' sin.
>>
>> > No, but blatantly blowing them at full speed is. I regularly drive to
>> > the Metro station, which happens to be along a marked bike route. I'd
>> > say 75% of the riders I see don't even bother to slow down for stop
>> > signs. I'm honestly scared that I will miss one someday... I'm not
>> > sure how they stay alive, unless they are actually looking both ways
>> > and
>> > I'm just not seeing them do it.
>>
>> > I honestly don't care if they do a "california stop" but seeing a biker
>> > suddenly shoot across the intersection at 20 MPH as you're preparing to
>> > step on the gas is a little unnerving.
>>
>> > nate
>>
>> Motorists are just plain annoying -- they're always in the way, clogging
>> up the roads and forming long lines at intersections. Why should I be
>> forced to wait for them?
>>
>> To add insult to injury, motorists fantasize that they "pay for the
>> roads", even though their road hog related contributions only add up to
>> around 60% -- which includes the entire highway system, most of which
>> we're not even allowed to enter. Add to that the fact that they're
>> responsible for most of the wear & tear, creating potholes, etc. and
>> requiring the massive overbuilding to carry their stinking bulk.
>>
>> Most car trips are not even of necessity. Drivers just willfully snarl
>> up the streets with hourly "errands" to fast food drive-thru's,
>> excursions to Wal-Mart and cruising for yard sales.
>>
>> If the pudgy, latte chugging, cell yakking, SUV jockeys had an ounce of
>> common courtesy, they'd just pull over when the see a bike approach and
>> let us by their spewing hulks. Why on earth should I stop for them?
>> What's the point of riding a bike anyway, to act like a car? I'm tired
>> of both subsidizing and accommodating these rude and selfish creeps.
>> Ooooh -- I startled one! Made him drop his Mcmuffin. Boo Hoo.
>
> Ah, I guess it was only a matter of time before the "arrogant asshole
> cyclist contingent" showed up.
>
> Here's a homework assignment for you: please post the section in your
> state motor vehicle code where a bicycle acting as a vehicle (that is,
> being ridden on the street) is exempt from any laws involving stop
> signs or right of way.

While Peter's looking that up, would you kindly do us a favor and find the
exemptions allowed for motorists to cruise around over the speed limit
whenever they please?

Enough of the self-righteous "thou shalt follow the law" act -- let's face
it: you ignore speed limit laws when more or less safe to do so and when it
is convenient. Why come down on a bicyclist who ignores signals when it is
more or less safe to do so and convenient?

Obviously there is a LOT of variation of opinion on what is "safe," -- some
people are total sticklers for speed limits and stop signs under *all*
circumstances. Fine. If you never, ever exceed the speed limit and come to
a complete and full stop at all stop signs at all times, I will grant that
you have earned the right to speak without hypocrisy on the subject of
moving violations.

For the *rest* of us, can't we use a little good old fashioned utilitarian
common sense as long as we're not hurting anyone?

brink

brink wrote:
> "N8N" <njnagel@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1184606450.912317.324610@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
>
>>On Jul 16, 12:20 pm, Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Nate Nagel wrote:
>>>
>>>>Tom Keats wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article <Odumi.7354$rR.1...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
>>>>> Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS <xeton2...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>writes:
>>>
>>>>>>Nate Nagel wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>I sincerely hope that I don't start doing the things that I see
>>>>>>>bikers doing on the roads all the time that pisses me off while
>>>>>>>driving (mostly blowing stop signs,
>>>
>>>>>The so-called "California stop" is not exclusively
>>>>>a cyclists' sin.
>>>
>>>>No, but blatantly blowing them at full speed is. I regularly drive to
>>>>the Metro station, which happens to be along a marked bike route. I'd
>>>>say 75% of the riders I see don't even bother to slow down for stop
>>>>signs. I'm honestly scared that I will miss one someday... I'm not
>>>>sure how they stay alive, unless they are actually looking both ways
>>>>and
>>>>I'm just not seeing them do it.
>>>
>>>>I honestly don't care if they do a "california stop" but seeing a biker
>>>>suddenly shoot across the intersection at 20 MPH as you're preparing to
>>>>step on the gas is a little unnerving.
>>>
>>>>nate
>>>
>>>Motorists are just plain annoying -- they're always in the way, clogging
>>>up the roads and forming long lines at intersections. Why should I be
>>>forced to wait for them?
>>>
>>>To add insult to injury, motorists fantasize that they "pay for the
>>>roads", even though their road hog related contributions only add up to
>>>around 60% -- which includes the entire highway system, most of which
>>>we're not even allowed to enter. Add to that the fact that they're
>>>responsible for most of the wear & tear, creating potholes, etc. and
>>>requiring the massive overbuilding to carry their stinking bulk.
>>>
>>>Most car trips are not even of necessity. Drivers just willfully snarl
>>>up the streets with hourly "errands" to fast food drive-thru's,
>>>excursions to Wal-Mart and cruising for yard sales.
>>>
>>>If the pudgy, latte chugging, cell yakking, SUV jockeys had an ounce of
>>>common courtesy, they'd just pull over when the see a bike approach and
>>>let us by their spewing hulks. Why on earth should I stop for them?
>>>What's the point of riding a bike anyway, to act like a car? I'm tired
>>>of both subsidizing and accommodating these rude and selfish creeps.
>>>Ooooh -- I startled one! Made him drop his Mcmuffin. Boo Hoo.
>>
>>Ah, I guess it was only a matter of time before the "arrogant asshole
>>cyclist contingent" showed up.
>>
>>Here's a homework assignment for you: please post the section in your
>>state motor vehicle code where a bicycle acting as a vehicle (that is,
>>being ridden on the street) is exempt from any laws involving stop
>>signs or right of way.
>
>
> While Peter's looking that up, would you kindly do us a favor and find the
> exemptions allowed for motorists to cruise around over the speed limit
> whenever they please?
>
> Enough of the self-righteous "thou shalt follow the law" act -- let's face
> it: you ignore speed limit laws when more or less safe to do so and when it
> is convenient. Why come down on a bicyclist who ignores signals when it is
> more or less safe to do so and convenient?
>
> Obviously there is a LOT of variation of opinion on what is "safe," -- some
> people are total sticklers for speed limits and stop signs under *all*
> circumstances. Fine. If you never, ever exceed the speed limit and come to
> a complete and full stop at all stop signs at all times, I will grant that
> you have earned the right to speak without hypocrisy on the subject of
> moving violations.
>
> For the *rest* of us, can't we use a little good old fashioned utilitarian
> common sense as long as we're not hurting anyone?
>
> brink
>
>

Actually I do *not* break the speed limit. Ever since that new Virginia
law was put into effect I have been one speed limit obeying mofo. I set
the cruise at the speed limit and if you don't like it then pass me.
Even if it is 25 MPH on a main street, I don't care. 55 MPH on the
Dulles Toll Road, I'm definitely in the right lane. It's my little form
of civil obedience. I'm probably the most law-abiding driver on the road.

I fully expect to get hassled by a cop eventually for impeding traffic
but it hasn't happened yet. Maybe VA cops have enough people speeding
(like everyone else) that they don't have time to worry about it.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Nate Nagel wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:

>> Oh, get over yourself. Nobody takes those laws seriously other than a
>> priggish, sanctimonious minority of bike riders. Live large, what are
>> they going to do, revoke your license? Heh.
>
> You sound an awful lot like the Harley rider who passed me on the
> shoulder and then started cussing me out because I didn't immediately
> jam on the brakes to let him merge in because "it was his life I was
> risking."

Sorry, I don't follow that comparison.


> No, dumbass, YOU are risking YOUR life when you don't play by the rules.
> It is rare that I can honestly say that I wouldn't have sympathy for
> someone when something bad happens to them, but when you're playing
> Darwin's little helper, c'est la vie.

Well, if it's my skin I'm risking, why should you care? That's my whole
point. I don't think laws are intended to protect people from
themselves. Actually, I don't think I do risk my skin any more than you
(probably less), and since it is my skin, I feel completely entitled to
risk it or not as I see fit.

No need for name calling.

Nate Nagel wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:
>> Luigi de Guzman wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 13:41:06 -0400, Peter Cole wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Oh, get over yourself. Nobody takes those laws seriously other than a
>>>> priggish, sanctimonious minority of bike riders. Live large, what are
>>>> they going to do, revoke your license? Heh.
>>>
>>>
>>> Depends on the jurisdiction. The "reckless driving" statute in Virginia
>>> states:
>>
>>
>> I'm not "driving". That's the whole point.
>
> If you're riding on a public road, you are.
>
> nate
>

No, you're not.

Nate Nagel wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:
>> Luigi de Guzman wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 15:30:07 -0400, Peter Cole wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I'm not "driving". That's the whole point.
>>>
>>>
>>> You're operating a vehicle on the public rights-of-way. You might be
>>> lighter, more efficient, and more ecologically sound, but you're still
>>> "driving," as far as the statute applies to you.
>>
>>
>> No you're not, you're riding a bike.
>
> Which is a vehicle being operated on a public right-of-way. The two
> statements are not contradictory.
>
> nate
>

Riding a bicycle is not the same, under the law, as driving a car, which
is not the same as driving a truck, which is not the same as driving a
gasoline tanker, etc., etc. Even the ROW rules are similar, not identical.

Brent P wrote:
> In article <YvydnQB5ZbTAfwbbnZ2dnUVZ_vShnZ2d@comcast.com>, Peter Cole wrote:
>> Brent P wrote:
>
>>> I don't like gutter passers and other sorts of illegal lane usage so I
>>> don't do them.
>
>> It's not illegal here (MA). Are you sure it's illegal where you are?
>
> Lane splitting certainly, gutter passing only when there is considerably
> more space than that typically present.

Your state has a space limit for right hand passing on a bicycle? What
is it? What's the state?


>>> The third time I make NO effort to give
>>> them space.
>
>> That sounds pretty menacing.
>
> Oh they still have more space than they had when they gutter passed me.
> If they aren't going to behave as a vehicle, I see no reason to treat
> them as one.

That sounds sanctimonious and menacing.


>> In stop & go traffic, it's pretty hit or
>> miss whether or not the cars you pass ever pass you again, sometimes you
>> repeatedly pass each other, sometimes not. Even if you do repeatedly
>> pass, why should the motorist be entitled to irritation? It makes as
>> much sense for me to be irritated about having to filter forward again.
>
> I've passed the same bicyclist upwards of four times in normal city
> traffic because they gutter pass to the front of the queue.

So what?

>> Right, and I see no more reason to be less irritated by a car in my way
>> than a bike.
>
> That's why they get a full lane when I pass. But if they decide not to
> play nice and gutter pass, well then I'll treat them accordingly.

You're just making up your own set of private rules and being petty.


>> In urban scenes I can usually flow through traffic much
>> faster than the traffic is moving. I see no reason to park myself behind
>> a tailpipe.
>
> Funny. When I am driving or riding I am faster than the gutter passers.
> If we take the same route I will always end up repassing them.

In what circumstances? Downtown? What kind of city? Synchronized lights?
I wouldn't bother continuously repassing a line of traffic only to swap
positions over and over, but that's something that happens very rarely
in my experience and is very dependent on precise conditions which are,
for all intents, impossible to predict.

Brent P wrote:
> In article <rvmdnRycgqJVQAbbnZ2dnUVZ_sK3nZ2d@comcast.com>, Peter Cole wrote:
>> Brent P wrote:
>>
>>> You haven't lived until you've made a driver angry by preventing him from
>>> kissing up his front bumper to the rear bumper of a car in front of you.
>>> :)
>
>> Sure, that's one of the problems with "vehicular" cycling -- it really
>> pisses some drivers off.
>
> Better that dead from riding stupidly.

"Filtering forward" on the right has it's risks, but they're easily
managed. Going up a line of stopped traffic on the left is usually
safer, it avoids the dooring & right on red conflicts.

Personally, I think it's stupid to stand in a line of idling traffic,
especially when there's no legal reason to do so. The only people who
would do such a thing are those with strange ideas about bicycling (I'm
a car, too!).


>> I'm convinced that many drivers think that it's
>> illegal for cyclists to be on the road at all, while others think it's
>> tolerable only if you never impede their progress (give unlimited
>> unilateral right of way). It's pointless to argue with these people, I
>> know, I've tried.
>
> And I won't feed their nonsense by behaving the way they see all
> bicyclists.

You assume they think like you do, which is very unlikely. Your idea of
being a "good" cyclist is mostly in your head. Your vindictive attitude
toward bike riders who don't follow your private rules is appalling.

Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net> said in rec.autos.driving:
>
>> Motorists are just plain annoying -- they're always in the way, clogging
>> up the roads and forming long lines at intersections. Why should I be
>> forced to wait for them?
>
> <sniff, sniff> I smell a Troll.

Wait if you want pal, I'm gone.


>> To add insult to injury, motorists fantasize that they "pay for the
>> roads", even though their road hog related contributions only add up to
>> around 60%
>
> Which is still 60% more than pedalcyclists pay (unless their bikes
> take some sort of fuel that is subject to a fuel tax). Now I *know*
> you're a troll. Back under the bridge with ya.

You might want to think about that a little before you spout.

>> Ooooh -- I startled one! Made him drop his Mcmuffin. Boo Hoo.
>
> *PLONK!*

Oh, that hurts, an anonymous plonk.