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:
> Brent P wrote:
>
>> In article <1oKdnUzJdY_LzgDbnZ2dnUVZ_u_inZ2d@comcast.com>, Peter Cole
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Unlike you, I have never hit another cyclist. I also have never had a
>>> bike crash or a car crash. Maybe you should listen to reason.
>>
>>
>> Ride around kids on bikes some time. They are unpredictable, more than
>> you. They also don't obey rules, like you. Throw in some blind
>> corners. PLUS they crash into you.
>>
>>
>
> They don't crash into me. I think you need to be more careful.

I actually know a guy that had a kid on a bike run into the side of his
gorgeous, unrestored '62 Impala SS convertible. Stuff like that seems
to only happen to people with really special cars for some reason.

nate

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

Peter Cole wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>
>> In article <1oKdnVPJdY86zwDbnZ2dnUVZ_u_inZ2d@comcast.com>, Peter Cole
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Brent P wrote:
>
>
>> Body shop labor is $46/hr here. Figure it out.
>>
>>>>>>> I think the new law is a good one. It is similar to places with
>>>>>>> larger bike cultures like Germany. I've argued for it here (MA),
>>>>>>> but the local "advocates" are "vehicularists" and resist any idea
>>>>>>> that would upset parity. I'm sorry, until the laws of physics
>>>>>>> give us parity, the state laws shouldn't either.
>>
>>
>>>>>> I think it's a good law, but it comes with following the vehicle
>>>>>> code. If you throw out the vehicle code well then, you 'take your
>>>>>> chances'.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> It doesn't "come from the vehicle code", it is the vehicle code.
>>>>> There's nothing to say rules for cars and bikes have to be the
>>>>> same, for ROW or anything else. Think outside the box.
>>>>
>>>> Um. that's not what I wrote. I wrote that it comes WITH. If you
>>>> can't read, usenet might not be the place for you.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Sorry, WTF does "it's a good law, but it comes with following the
>>> vehicle code" mean?
>>
>>
>> If you aren't going to obey the passing spacing laws, why should the
>> driver?
>
>
>
> You're equating minor cosmetic damage to your car with serious bodily
> harm/death. Do you realize how crazy that sounds?

I equally want to avoid both. I can't afford the repairs, and a ticket
could literally cost me my job, depending on how severe it is.

nate

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

Frank Krygowski wrote:
> At the very least, he should study Zoot and
> learn to cuss with style. ;-)

I do not think that word means what you think it means. He comes across
on a good day as an angry, unpleasant person and on a bad day as
borderline mentally ill.

nate

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

Peter Cole wrote:
> Dane Buson wrote:
>
>> Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>
>>>> The poor dears must actually believe the TV car commercials - the
>>>> ones that show that buying the "new 2007 Belchmobile" will magically
>>>> remove all other cars from the road. (How _do_ the ad producers
>>>> keep all other cars out of their shots?) When they harness
>>>> themselves to another $30,000 debt and find themselves still stuck
>>>> in traffic, they feel angry.
>>>
>>> Funny thing is, last weekend my neighbor & I were comparing gross
>>> vehicle weights & hp of our repective vehicles (we're both kind of
>>> motor heads). Turns out his "hot rod" 70's 'Vette isn't that much
>>> different than my '95 minivan (AKA brain fart) -- and mine is
>>> sluggish by current standards. We're cranking out faster & faster
>>> cars while the logistics (congestion & economics) are pushing back
>>> hard -- there's a real logical disconnect. Well, it wasn't so long
>>> ago that many/most thought DWI/DUI was no big deal either.
>>
>>
>> I'm personally in favour of graduated licensing and possibly graduated
>> taxation, both based on engine displacement[1]. Short of myself getting
>> appointed President for life, I don't see that happening in the US.
>>
>> [1] Other countries have implemented exactly these measures.
>>
>
> I think that perhaps the fairest thing to do is just raise the taxes on
> gas (also something other countries have done in a big way), that way
> you wouldn't be penalized for having a guzzler, just for driving it.
> But, at a time when people are indignant over the price of gas, having
> the government make it "artificially" higher seems like a no-starter --
> rational, but a no-starter. What does that say?

I think the concern is the impact on low-income people who rely on
personal cars for transportation (i.e. they live in areas with no public
transport.) If that objection could be disposed of in a fair manner I
agree with you 100%, raise gas taxes. It needs to be done.

nate

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

Peter Cole wrote:
> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>> Brent P wrote:
>>>> In article <1oKdnUzJdY_LzgDbnZ2dnUVZ_u_inZ2d@comcast.com>, Peter
>>>> Cole wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Unlike you, I have never hit another cyclist. I also have never had
>>>>> a bike crash or a car crash. Maybe you should listen to reason.
>>>>
>>>> Ride around kids on bikes some time. They are unpredictable, more
>>>> than you. They also don't obey rules, like you. Throw in some blind
>>>> corners. PLUS they crash into you.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> They don't crash into me. I think you need to be more careful.
>>
>> I have had more close calls (and accidents caused) from children while
>> riding a bicycle than from motor vehicles.
>>
>
> Wow, that's a shocker. I'm extra-careful where ever children might be
> found, seems like the civilized thing to do.

One problem with children is that they are short, and can be hidden from
view by even a proper size (automobile) motor vehicle, leaving little
time to react when they dart into the street.

The worst is passing children on bicycles, since they can or will not
hold a line.

The civilized thing to do would be to ship the children off to boarding
schools until they are mature enough to behave, instead of inflicting
one's precious brats on other people.

If we had a real libertarian government, we could establish child free
communities without running afoul of anti-discrimination laws. Imagine
the peace and quiet.

--
Tom “Shooting sacred cows” Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

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

Peter Cole wrote:
> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
>> ...
>> Some local streets even ban bicycles.
>
> Some also ban cars. As far as I know, any attempt to ban bikes while
> allowing other vehicles has not stood up to challenge. If you have other
> examples I'd like to hear them.

St. Mary's Road east of Romine Street:
<http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?searchtype=address&country=US&addtohistory=&searchtab=home&formtype=address&popflag=0&latitude=&longitude=&name=&phone=&level=&cat=&address=st.+mary%27s+road+and+s.+lincoln+avenue&city=urbana&state=il&zipcode=>.

>>> If local authorities tried to do it, state authorities would
>>> override, if states tried it, the feds would override. Right of free
>>> passage on public lands is sacrosanct.
>>
>> The US is not the UK, and the use of many public lands is severely
>> restricted.
>
> How so?

I see a lot of "No Trespassing, Government Property" signs.

Much public parkland is off-limits to cyclists in the US [1].

There is not the same right for public access along centuries old
footpaths in the US as exists in the UK, even when they are on private
property.

>>> To accuse scofflaw cyclists of risking that right is invoking the
>>> bogeyman.
>>
>> In the US, motorists outnumber cyclists. If bicycles were severely
>> restricted, would the politicians really be risking their jobs?
>
> Perhaps not, but laws have to meet consistency and precedence
> requirements, that's why we have courts.

Not with the courts loaded with activist, Federalist Society judges.

[1] Do I hear Mikey V. gloating?

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

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

Peter Cole wrote:
> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
>> Peter Cole wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>>
>> YOUR behavior on a bicycle leads to a general disrespect of cyclists
>> by motorist. This makes things more dangerous for EVERY cyclist.
>
> That's your contention, but I don't find that it holds water logically
> or in practice.
>
>
>> Please don't complain when laws are passed requiring cyclists to use
>> second class facilities such as MUPs and "bike lanes", since your
>> actions help bring about support for these laws.
>
> Again, I've heard this threat raised repeatedly, but I know of no cases
> in the US. MUP's and lanes seem to happen because some groups of
> cyclists lobby for them. I'm no fan of either.
>
> There is a danger in mixing slow bikes with fast cars (to cyclists). One
> solution is segregated facilities. That approach has a lot of
> supporters. I neither believe in "separate but equal" nor just "equal".
> In areas of high conflict (densely settled) I think the best solution is
> to designate some streets as preferential bike routes with better
> accommodations. Those accommodations might include things like wide
> right lanes for sharing, traffic calming (low speed limits, humps,
> rotaries, etc.), good lighting and surfacing, etc. It's a reasonable
> compromise and shouldn't preclude the use of all roads by cyclists.
>
> In recent years, incidents of road rage have increasingly made the
> headlines. People who might otherwise, fear riding bikes on streets.
> They're not afraid of other cyclists, they're afraid of cars, trucks and
> buses. And they should be. Motorist behavior is outrageous -- to bikes,
> pedestrians and other motorists, and it's getting worse. Blaming the
> victim is not part of the solution, it's part of the problem.

The real problem is excessive breeding [1]. Remove 120,000,000 people
from the US, and most traffic problems and "road rage" would disappear.

[1] Which the childless are forced to subsidize.

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

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

Dane Buson wrote:
> Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> The poor dears must actually believe the TV car commercials - the ones
>>> that show that buying the "new 2007 Belchmobile" will magically remove
>>> all other cars from the road. (How _do_ the ad producers keep all other
>>> cars out of their shots?) When they harness themselves to another
>>> $30,000 debt and find themselves still stuck in traffic, they feel angry.
>> Funny thing is, last weekend my neighbor & I were comparing gross
>> vehicle weights & hp of our repective vehicles (we're both kind of motor
>> heads). Turns out his "hot rod" 70's 'Vette isn't that much different
>> than my '95 minivan (AKA brain fart) -- and mine is sluggish by current
>> standards. We're cranking out faster & faster cars while the logistics
>> (congestion & economics) are pushing back hard -- there's a real logical
>> disconnect. Well, it wasn't so long ago that many/most thought DWI/DUI
>> was no big deal either.
>
> I'm personally in favour of graduated licensing and possibly graduated
> taxation, both based on engine displacement[1]. Short of myself getting
> appointed President for life, I don't see that happening in the US.
>
> [1] Other countries have implemented exactly these measures.

The taxation should also consider gross weight and vehicle height. If
you want to block the view of people driving reasonable automobiles, you
should pay for the privilege.

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

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

removed:rec.autos.driving,

On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 16:45:51 -0400, Peter Cole
<peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote:

>Dane Buson wrote:
>> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>> YOUR behavior on a bicycle leads to a general disrespect of cyclists by
>>> motorist. This makes things more dangerous for EVERY cyclist.
>>
>> I have a lot of trouble swallowing that rationale.
>>
>> It's essentially a rationalization to justify doing or saying crappy things to
>> the "other" group. Bicyclists are a minority of the population, and anyone who
>> uses a bike for transportation instead of a toy definitely puts themselves in
>> the "outsider" group. Xenophobia and ignorance does the rest.
>>
>> It's pretty much in the same group as things like:
>>
>> [Ethnic group] is so [lazy|stupid|dirty|criminal] they don't deserve better
>> treatment.
>>
>> If every cyclist every driver saw in the future punctiliously followed every
>> traffic regulation would they stop having a problem with cyclists? Probably
>> not. They'd probably say something like "You mess up traffic", "You don't pay
>> for your fair share of the roads", "You should get a real vehicle to get to
>> work", etc., etc., ad nauseum, ad infinitum.
>>
>> I'm saying the whole "When bicyclists start respecting [X]" is a strawman at
>> best. I see plenty of motorists running red lights and stop signs and nobody
>> seems to paint all drivers with that brush. Because the majority of people are
>> car drivers.
>>
>
>Thanks for putting it so well. I think of it as bicycle "Uncle Tom-ism".
>I've actually gone (over 10 years) from being an enthusiastic member of
>cycling advocacy groups to being anti those same groups. I concluded
>that not only were they not working in my perceived self interests, but
>actually against them. I don't believe in either "vehicular" cycling or
>segregated facilities which seem to be the major advocacy platforms. I
>prefer the old anarchy to that new "progress". I get more like Zoot
>every day.


Getting back on the bike seven years ago I was pretty much a stickler
for the rules and I still am. It sounds like you are too in that
neither of us takes foolish risks on the road.

Reading this group and getting to know many others who also ride
daily I began modifying my view on a few of the things I'd held
sacrosanct. Observation and experimentation has led me to make better
use of the bicycle's superiority as a vehicle.

That our advocacy groups push for bike lanes and separate facilities
puts me at odds with their agenda. However I think a "vehicular
cycling" approach to teaching bicycling is good. It gives riders
lacking confidence and/or knowledge a reasonably sound method for
taking their place as traffic.

After they get some miles under their butts let them modify the
strategies to suit their surroundings.

I admire the courage of Hans Monderman and Davd Enwicht for taking a
kick conventional traffic management practises. I have observed that
chaos or amusement can have visibly positive effects on traffic flow
in terms of slowing it back down to a human scale. They're onto
something there but I have little hope it will enter North American
planning discussions any time soon.

Also I'm not ready to fully embrace it myself outside of personal
experimentation. Many areas of the world have greater pedestrian
injury and fatality rates. Those areas generally lack the highly
regulated infrastructure we've built for our motorised traffic.

But yeah, I'm all for a injecting a little chaos and accepting
responsibility for my actions. I've found that, without even trying
or breaking any laws, I startle at least six drivers on an average
trip downtown.
--
zk

On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 14:20:29 GMT, Luigi de Guzman
<luigi12081@cox.net> wrote:

>On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 23:56:00 -0700, Zoot Katz wrote:
>
>> I think cars make people crazy and I'd like to know why that appears to
>> be so. I've got a few ideas.
>
>Having been a cyclist before being a motorist, and now being both, I have
>a few ideas, too.
>
>When I'm driving, I've got a lot of power right there under my right foot.
> I can accelerate like a bat out of hell, and it makes me think
>differently about timing and traffic flow. From my time on the bike, I
>know that *average* speed is really where it's at, but in the car, I'm
>constantly looking at my *instantaneous* speed as reported on the
>speedometer.
>
>Traffic in a car is a maddening thing, as well. The machine is just so
>damn huge and ungainly compared to a bike. There's just nowhere to go,
>and I'm just idling there burning gas. Ugh.
>
>In general, I find that the ability to stomp on the accelerator drives a
>lot of bad behavior. You're fed up, and you take it out on the
>accelerator, since it's right there, and feedback is immediate. On a
>bike, if I get frustrated, well, I just have to deal with it somehow.

I think buying into the ability to exceed all known speed limits, yet
being restricted to less than a quarter of the car's top speed for
most of the trip, must add to the frustration. Your car can legally
go 60 mph but it still takes 45 minutes to travel thirty miles from
the city to your home. It doesn't make sense to people.

I think another conflicting signal for the brain is the melding of
public and private domains.

You're all comfy in your car. It has all the comforts of home; food,
drink, entertaining diversions, climate control, upholstered couch,
etc. People think they're at home so are entitled to be rude to
uninvited encroachments by strangers. They're not considering driving
as a public act. Lacking normal social interactions they fail to make
the connection that driving occurs in a public space.

Madison Ave. sells fantasies to millions needing an identity. The
advertising is so pervasive in our culture pliable minds identify
with the products they're fed. The automobile industry buys the most
advertising of any industry. People end up identifying with their
car. It's the image that they want to project to the world. "Ooh
look, he/she must be cool/hot/smart/rich to drive that car" and "Get
out of my way. Can't you see I'm sexier/smarter/richer than you
because I drive this special car"

That the car forms an extension of the body or becomes a beloved pet
leads to the weirdness we hear of drivers who shoot kids for keying
their paint jobs. The car whacks are always online talking trash
about how they'd kill, maim, torture or otherwise physically punish
anyone they caught vandalising their metal stink boxes.

Hollywood glorifies reckless driving and creates the impression that
it has no consequence except perhaps a few minutes of drama.

There are all kinds of new shows on television aimed at automobile
enthusiasts. I'd not doubt there was at least a few motor-head
networks devoted exclusively to automobile programs. A lot of that
programming is macho flavoured to appeal to the fume sniffing knuckle
dragging end of the spectrum.

All it does is encourage morons to believe that they too can be stars
in their cars.

Maybe its just the pure simplicity of the bicycle that brings out
evil in others. I mean, bicyclists in the past were buggy-whipped.
The snarky mutterings ranging to the nasty vicious bullshit we get
from today's drivers really isn't anything new to bicyclists.
--
zk

On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 13:15:45 -0700, Dane Buson <dane@unseen.edu>
wrote:

>Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>
>>> The poor dears must actually believe the TV car commercials - the ones
>>> that show that buying the "new 2007 Belchmobile" will magically remove
>>> all other cars from the road. (How _do_ the ad producers keep all other
>>> cars out of their shots?) When they harness themselves to another
>>> $30,000 debt and find themselves still stuck in traffic, they feel angry.
>>
>> Funny thing is, last weekend my neighbor & I were comparing gross
>> vehicle weights & hp of our repective vehicles (we're both kind of motor
>> heads). Turns out his "hot rod" 70's 'Vette isn't that much different
>> than my '95 minivan (AKA brain fart) -- and mine is sluggish by current
>> standards. We're cranking out faster & faster cars while the logistics
>> (congestion & economics) are pushing back hard -- there's a real logical
>> disconnect. Well, it wasn't so long ago that many/most thought DWI/DUI
>> was no big deal either.
>
>I'm personally in favour of graduated licensing and possibly graduated
>taxation, both based on engine displacement[1]. Short of myself getting
>appointed President for life, I don't see that happening in the US.
>
>[1] Other countries have implemented exactly these measures.

Graduated licensing starting with proof you've ridden a bicycle for
two years without mishap or a moving violation. Then you can get a
license for a moped. Another year without problems and you're
eligible for up to 499 cc motorcycles for a year, or until you're 19.
After that let the motorcycle license be issued or you can opt for
two years driving a car. It must be a car that requires learning real
driving skills. Something with all the comforts and technology of a
1950's English sports car or early beetle.
--
zk

On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 19:33:19 GMT, Arif Khokar <akhokar1234@wvu.edu>
wrote:

>I avoid riding at night if possible.

You need lights on that toy if you want to play vehicle.
--
zk

Nate Nagel wrote:
> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> At the very least, he should study Zoot and
>> learn to cuss with style. ;-)
>
> I do not think that word means what you think it means. He comes across
> on a good day as an angry, unpleasant person and on a bad day as
> borderline mentally ill.

Zoot on motor vehicles can come across like M*k* V*nd*m*n on mountain
bicycles.

--
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 Wed, 18 Jul 2007 21:11:38 -0500, Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
<sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:

>The taxation should also consider gross weight and vehicle height. If
>you want to block the view of people driving reasonable automobiles, you
>should pay for the privilege.

And here I always thought that bent riders looked under the SUVs in
order to see the road.
--
zk

Zoot Katz wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 19:33:19 GMT, Arif Khokar <akhokar1234@wvu.edu>
> wrote:

>> I avoid riding at night if possible.

> You need lights on that toy if you want to play vehicle.

I do have lights and reflectors on the bicycle. I just don't like
riding at night (or in fog, or in rain for that matter).

Zoot Katz wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 13:15:45 -0700, Dane Buson <dane@unseen.edu>
> wrote:
>
>> Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>> The poor dears must actually believe the TV car commercials - the ones
>>>> that show that buying the "new 2007 Belchmobile" will magically remove
>>>> all other cars from the road. (How _do_ the ad producers keep all other
>>>> cars out of their shots?) When they harness themselves to another
>>>> $30,000 debt and find themselves still stuck in traffic, they feel angry.
>>> Funny thing is, last weekend my neighbor & I were comparing gross
>>> vehicle weights & hp of our repective vehicles (we're both kind of motor
>>> heads). Turns out his "hot rod" 70's 'Vette isn't that much different
>>> than my '95 minivan (AKA brain fart) -- and mine is sluggish by current
>>> standards. We're cranking out faster & faster cars while the logistics
>>> (congestion & economics) are pushing back hard -- there's a real logical
>>> disconnect. Well, it wasn't so long ago that many/most thought DWI/DUI
>>> was no big deal either.
>> I'm personally in favour of graduated licensing and possibly graduated
>> taxation, both based on engine displacement[1]. Short of myself getting
>> appointed President for life, I don't see that happening in the US.
>>
>> [1] Other countries have implemented exactly these measures.
>
> Graduated licensing starting with proof you've ridden a bicycle for
> two years without mishap or a moving violation. Then you can get a
> license for a moped. Another year without problems and you're
> eligible for up to 499 cc motorcycles for a year, or until you're 19.
> After that let the motorcycle license be issued or you can opt for
> two years driving a car. It must be a car that requires learning real
> driving skills. Something with all the comforts and technology of a
> 1950's English sports car or early beetle.

Is bailing water from the floor with a turkey baster every time it rains
really a necessary skill (after spending 10 minutes wrestling the top
up)? Or getting frostbite from driving in cold weather?

Britannia may rule the waves, but don't get Lucas electricals wet!

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

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

Zoot Katz wrote:
> ...
> That the car forms an extension of the body or becomes a beloved pet
> leads to the weirdness we hear of drivers who shoot kids for keying
> their paint jobs. The car whacks are always online talking trash
> about how they'd kill, maim, torture or otherwise physically punish
> anyone they caught vandalising their metal stink boxes....

Let's fix this:

That the bicycle forms an extension of the body and/or becomes a beloved
pet leads to the justified behavior we hear of cyclists who shoot kids
for keying their paint jobs. The cyclists are always online talking
sense about how they'd kill, maim, torture or otherwise physically
punish anyone they caught vandalizing their beautiful bicycle.

Much better, is it not? ;)

--
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 Thu, 19 Jul 2007 02:23:49 GMT, Arif Khokar <akhokar1234@wvu.edu>
wrote:

>Zoot Katz wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 19:33:19 GMT, Arif Khokar <akhokar1234@wvu.edu>
>> wrote:
>
>>> I avoid riding at night if possible.
>
>> You need lights on that toy if you want to play vehicle.
>
>I do have lights and reflectors on the bicycle. I just don't like
>riding at night (or in fog, or in rain for that matter).

Like it or not, those are the operating conditions in the real world
of bicycling. Adapt to it or quit playing around.
--
zk

In article <0uht93laek57hnk2bg1n76k4995ut35v0m@4ax.com>,
Zoot Katz <zootkatz@operamail.com> wrote:

>But yeah, I'm all for a injecting a little chaos and accepting
>responsibility for my actions. I've found that, without even trying
>or breaking any laws, I startle at least six drivers on an average
>trip downtown.

I can startle six drivers on an average trip downtown *BY* not breaking
any laws. Of course, the trip goes past two universities, so the density
of bozocyclists is well above average...

Though there also ways to enjoy the trip without injecting any chaos.
I had a bit of fun at a traffic light a few weeks ago: Was behind a
Buick, waiting for the light to change, with a bit of a breeze at my
back and a nice downhill on the other side of the intersection, and a
convertible pulled up in the lane beside us. When the light changed, the
driver of the Buick floored it. (I think he thought he was racing the
convertible; the driver of the convertible obviously didn't think so.)
When I saw what was happening, I decided to have some fun and see how
far I could keep up with the Buick (optimal conditions and all that),
and managed to stay within about three car-lengths (and well ahead of
the convertible) until I turned off into a parking lot at the bottom of
the hill.

About the only thing that would've made it more fun to watch would have
been a motorcycle behind me pulling out ahead of the convertible to
pass us...


dave

--
Dave Vandervies dj3vande@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
Anybody behind me can pass safely if possible, wait for me, or get a bike.
Obviously a Civic could get around me easier than an Escalade.
--Andy Gee in rec.bicycles.misc

On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 21:37:28 -0500, Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
<sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> Graduated licensing starting with proof you've ridden a bicycle for
>> two years without mishap or a moving violation. Then you can get a
>> license for a moped. Another year without problems and you're
>> eligible for up to 499 cc motorcycles for a year, or until you're 19.
>> After that let the motorcycle license be issued or you can opt for
>> two years driving a car. It must be a car that requires learning real
>> driving skills. Something with all the comforts and technology of a
>> 1950's English sports car or early beetle.
>
>Is bailing water from the floor with a turkey baster every time it rains
>really a necessary skill (after spending 10 minutes wrestling the top
>up)? Or getting frostbite from driving in cold weather?

You don't like bailing? - Stick to motorcycles.

Even a six-volt Lucas system could run electric socks and mitts.
--
zk