Re: OT: joining the ranks of two wheelers again

Peter Cole

Brent P wrote:
> In article <5g4nqiF3e7ih8U4@mid.individual.net>, brink wrote:
>
>> Does "following the rules" include motorists not speeding, slow rolls
>> through stop signs and right on red, etc? Or are there just certain rules
>> that need to be followed by certain segments of the road-using public?
>
> Most people choose an appropiate speed for a road. Speed is off the table
> here.

Oh, BS. One of the most effective things real cycling advocates can do
to improve cycling safety is to push for lower speed limits, stiffer
fines and better enforcement. Speeding is not a victim-less crime.

Do you work for AAA?


> I cannot find an
> excuse to violate right of way rules while I am bicycling, even the
> idiotic speed-control stop signs that I would love to blow off. (stop signs
> put in a failed attempt to make people go slower that are VERY annoying
> driving or bicycling)

Traffic calming is great. It's the only real solution to getting more
people on bikes. Cyclists should be exempt from them, though. We're not
the problem that's being addressed, excess speed is.

Peter Cole

Brent P wrote:
> In article <Z92dnZOrYdhYoADbnZ2dnUVZ_vPinZ2d@comcast.com>, Peter Cole wrote:
>
>> Sorry, I disagree. By being unpredictable, I make things less risky for
>> others since drivers have to pay more attention. This phenomenon is
>> easily seen where bike messengers are common. Drivers bitch, but they
>> watch out.
>
> Until you get hit by the idiot who was text messaging thinking you'd be
> predictable and you weren't.

Hasn't happened yet, but then it's my ass, isn't it?

Peter Cole

Brent P wrote:
> In article <BJWdndWe9IuO3ADbnZ2dnUVZ_sSmnZ2d@comcast.com>, Peter Cole wrote:
>> Brent P wrote:
>>> In article <wuidnaknntjxngDbnZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@comcast.com>, Peter Cole wrote:
>>>
>>>> Outside of rather arbitrary and inconsistent right of way rules, bicycle
>>>> riding is very much on the same legal footing as walking.
>>> Um, no. Same as a vehicle. Walking right of way rules are inferior unless
>>> you enjoy being confined to sidewalks and crosswalks.
>
>> As I said *outside* of ROW.
>
> Not that I saw. Outside right of way rules is outside the rules anyway so
> it makes no sense.
>
>>>> Motor vehicle
>>>> operation has huge liability issues, so it is reasonable to be heavily
>>>> regulated by the state -- unlike bikes.
>
>>> None of those regulations have anything to do with right of way.
>
>> No, they don't, that's a separate topic.
>
> Yet you try to bring them in.

Only to try to (unsuccessfully, apparently) make the point that driving
vehicles requires huge piles of laws that have no parallel (or
relevance) to cycling or walking.

There is no reason for ROW rules to have to be the same for cars and
bikes. There are a lot of sensible reasons why they shouldn't.


>>>> The one-size-fits-all "vehicular" model for bicycling is naive and
>>>> unnecessarily restrictive.
>
>>> Imagine for a moment that bicycles were dominate vehicle on the roads.
>>> Your concept of right of way simply doesn't scale. The result would be
>>> chaos. I have had many near collisions and a few collisions with
>>> bicycle riders like you while I was biking. The concept you ride under only
>>> 'works'sorta kinda because automobiles are the most used vehicle on the
>>> road and are following, for the most part predictable rules. Replace them
>>> with vehicles operating under your rules and the whole thing falls apart.
>
>> Why don't we try it and see?
>
> See China. Even worse, now people in China are now driving in the same
> manner. It's Chaos. Your concepts do not scale.

From all accounts, China worked pretty well until they threw cars into
the mix. The only thing these problems point out is that to mix cars &
bikes you've got to do a better job of regulating cars, particularly
with respect to speeding and ROW violations. It's the cars that are the
problem, not the bikes. China's auto infrastructure is awful. We can,
and should, do much better.

Cyclists are a vulnerable population, but pedestrians don't fare well
either. Motor carnage is just something we've become blind to. It's a
real impediment to integration of more cycling (and walking). Treating
bikes as "vehicles", equal to cars under the law is a recipe for more
carnage. You're mixing low & high speed traffic, low & high mass
traffic, you can't segregate effectively, you can't bring bikes up to
speed/mass parity, you can't reduce car mass (to bike levels), so the
only option you have left is to slow down cars to bike speeds and tilt
ROW rules to favor cycles for safety reasons. It won't ever completely
level the field, but it's the direction to go in.

What you suggest is just blaming the victim.


>
>

Brent P

In article <CeednXQQOec32QDbnZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d@comcast.com>, Peter Cole wrote:

>>> Sure. What possible danger do I pose to them? What potential danger do
>>> they pose to me? See the difference?

>> You could easily do 1-2 grand in body damage to my property as you
>> violate the rules. You could easily get yourself hit and do damage to my
>> property. That's what gutter passers are doing.

> Sorry, I'll call bullshit on this.

You don't know what body work costs. Just repainting is over $300 a
panel. Run your brake handle along the side of a 2 door car and that's a
grand right there without even denting anything. A side mirror assembly
can easily run a couple hundred bucks without painting. Dent a panel...
well then... anyway price out some body work sometime. People hitting my
car has allowed me to learn what body work costs.

>>> 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.

Arif Khokar

Peter Cole wrote:
> Brent P wrote:

>> Most people choose an appropiate speed for a road. Speed is off the
>> table here.

> Oh, BS. One of the most effective things real cycling advocates can do
> to improve cycling safety is to push for lower speed limits,

Speed limits don't really have much of an effect on actual traffic
speeds. Underposting limits actually makes things worse for cyclists
(because more cars will pass those using the left lane(s) on the right,
which is hazardous to the cyclist in the right lane).

Brent P

In article <Xb6dnf3K5NGf2wDbnZ2dnUVZ_vamnZ2d@comcast.com>, Peter Cole wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article <5g4nqiF3e7ih8U4@mid.individual.net>, brink wrote:
>>
>>> Does "following the rules" include motorists not speeding, slow rolls
>>> through stop signs and right on red, etc? Or are there just certain rules
>>> that need to be followed by certain segments of the road-using public?
>>
>> Most people choose an appropiate speed for a road. Speed is off the table
>> here.

> Oh, BS.

You just showed your ignorance. Google 85th percentile

> One of the most effective things real cycling advocates can do
> to improve cycling safety is to push for lower speed limits, stiffer
> fines and better enforcement. Speeding is not a victim-less crime.

Lower speed limits make things WORSE. The worst roads to ride are the
under posted ones. The low speed limits cause slow drivers to sit in the
left lane(s) which diverts passing traffic to the right lane. It also
aggrivates drivers... so now as a bicyclist I am in the right lane
confronted by an aggrivated driver trying to get around some slow poke in
the left lane. That doesn't work well. I much prefer properly posted
roads. The result is a smoother, more orderly traffic flow.

> Do you work for AAA?

Now you really look dumb.

>> I cannot find an
>> excuse to violate right of way rules while I am bicycling, even the
>> idiotic speed-control stop signs that I would love to blow off. (stop signs
>> put in a failed attempt to make people go slower that are VERY annoying
>> driving or bicycling)

> Traffic calming is great.

The way it's typically done is shit for both bicyclists and drivers. Also
it is not effective.

> It's the only real solution to getting more
> people on bikes. Cyclists should be exempt from them, though. We're not
> the problem that's being addressed, excess speed is.

The problem is that speed limits aren't set appropiately everywhere. This
causes problems where they are set appropiately.

Brent P

In article <Xb6dnf_K5NGI1QDbnZ2dnUVZ_vbinZ2d@comcast.com>, Peter Cole wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article <Z92dnZOrYdhYoADbnZ2dnUVZ_vPinZ2d@comcast.com>, Peter Cole wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry, I disagree. By being unpredictable, I make things less risky for
>>> others since drivers have to pay more attention. This phenomenon is
>>> easily seen where bike messengers are common. Drivers bitch, but they
>>> watch out.
>>
>> Until you get hit by the idiot who was text messaging thinking you'd be
>> predictable and you weren't.
>
> Hasn't happened yet, but then it's my ass, isn't it?

Give it time.

Arif Khokar

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> Arif Khokar wrote:

>> 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.

I keep my tires inflated to 65 psi (which is the maximum pressure
specified). I would assume that the surface area contact patch for a
narrower tire would be less, which should result in less rolling resistance.

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

Thanks for the suggestion

Brent P

In article <PaGdnaWphfy10ADbnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d@comcast.com>, Peter Cole wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article <BJWdndWe9IuO3ADbnZ2dnUVZ_sSmnZ2d@comcast.com>, Peter Cole wrote:
>>> Brent P wrote:
>>>> In article <wuidnaknntjxngDbnZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@comcast.com>, Peter Cole wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Outside of rather arbitrary and inconsistent right of way rules, bicycle
>>>>> riding is very much on the same legal footing as walking.
>>>> Um, no. Same as a vehicle. Walking right of way rules are inferior unless
>>>> you enjoy being confined to sidewalks and crosswalks.
>>
>>> As I said *outside* of ROW.
>>
>> Not that I saw. Outside right of way rules is outside the rules anyway so
>> it makes no sense.
>>
>>>>> Motor vehicle
>>>>> operation has huge liability issues, so it is reasonable to be heavily
>>>>> regulated by the state -- unlike bikes.
>>
>>>> None of those regulations have anything to do with right of way.
>>
>>> No, they don't, that's a separate topic.
>>
>> Yet you try to bring them in.

> Only to try to (unsuccessfully, apparently) make the point that driving
> vehicles requires huge piles of laws that have no parallel (or
> relevance) to cycling or walking.

And have no relevance to the discussion of right of way. Why don't you
introduce the non-applicable aspects of automobile repair too?

> There is no reason for ROW rules to have to be the same for cars and
> bikes. There are a lot of sensible reasons why they shouldn't.

One big reason: They are using the same road system. You cannot have
various road users following different rules. It doesn't work.

>>>>> The one-size-fits-all "vehicular" model for bicycling is naive and
>>>>> unnecessarily restrictive.

>>>> Imagine for a moment that bicycles were dominate vehicle on the roads.
>>>> Your concept of right of way simply doesn't scale. The result would be
>>>> chaos. I have had many near collisions and a few collisions with
>>>> bicycle riders like you while I was biking. The concept you ride under only
>>>> 'works'sorta kinda because automobiles are the most used vehicle on the
>>>> road and are following, for the most part predictable rules. Replace them
>>>> with vehicles operating under your rules and the whole thing falls apart.
>>
>>> Why don't we try it and see?
>>
>> See China. Even worse, now people in China are now driving in the same
>> manner. It's Chaos. Your concepts do not scale.

> From all accounts, China worked pretty well until they threw cars into
> the mix.

Guess you never saw the chaos.

> The only thing these problems point out is that to mix cars &
> bikes you've got to do a better job of regulating cars, particularly
> with respect to speeding and ROW violations. It's the cars that are the
> problem, not the bikes. China's auto infrastructure is awful. We can,
> and should, do much better.

Yep totally clueless.

> Cyclists are a vulnerable population, but pedestrians don't fare well
> either.

Hit a ped with your bicycle when you're moving at good clip and see how
well he fairs.

> Motor carnage is just something we've become blind to. It's a
> real impediment to integration of more cycling (and walking). Treating
> bikes as "vehicles", equal to cars under the law is a recipe for more
> carnage. You're mixing low & high speed traffic, low & high mass
> traffic, you can't segregate effectively, you can't bring bikes up to
> speed/mass parity, you can't reduce car mass (to bike levels), so the
> only option you have left is to slow down cars to bike speeds and tilt
> ROW rules to favor cycles for safety reasons. It won't ever completely
> level the field, but it's the direction to go in.

You're just struggling to find a reason to justify your MFFYism. What it
comes down to is that you want to be first.

> What you suggest is just blaming the victim.

Aren't you full of shit. What I suggest is that traffic all follows the
same predictable rule set to avoid chaos, conflict, etc.

I got to go ride instead of trying to teach you how to ride properly.
You're hopeless. Someday, sooner or later, one of those drivers you run a
red in front of or gutter pass won't see you and you'll get hurt.

Of course the old magic words wouldn't work if so many bicycle riders
weren't like you.

Peter Cole

Brent P wrote:
> In article <Ha6dnc3EFsMJ3gDbnZ2dnUVZ_uiknZ2d@comcast.com>, Peter Cole wrote:

>> Then I don't understand why we're having this exchange. Live & let live.
>
> I already told you. Your form of riding makes things more difficult for
> everyone bicycling.

That's your claim, but it doesn't match my experience, or logic, for
that matter.


>> No, I'm just a guy on a bike that can go places a car can't.
>
> Yet you don't want those driving cars to violate the rules just because
> they can. That makes you, MFFY.

I have no idea what "MFFY" is. I want different rules for cars & bikes,
that's all.


>>> Unlike you, I'm not a hypocrite.
>
>> Nope. I just believe in "same roads, different rules", the precedents
>> are there, they just don't go far enough.
>
> That's what a hyocrite does. He believes in X for others and Y for himself.

Nope, X when I drive, Y when I bike.


>> I certainly don't want to be given a whole lane, that causes way too
>> much disruption to traffic.
>
> Actually it doesn't when people know how to drive and pay attention.

It's needlessly taking up space in already crowded roads. You're doing
no one any favors.


>>> I don't expect special treatment. You do.
>
>> Not special for me, special for cyclists.
>
> Which actually results in resentment.

Probably, among some, but they should grow up and get over it.

> I don't like being buzzed by other bicyclists, be it that I am biking or
> driving, thusly I don't do it to others. Yet you expect to do it but not
> have it done to you.

I don't see the problem with being buzzed by a bike when you're driving,
I think you're over-sensitive.

>>> Do you really want motorists exploiting the natural advantages of a motor
>>> vehicle to be first? I don't think so. There's no winning a free for all
>>> from the saddle.
>
>> You don't think motorists don't exploit their advantages? Drive much?
>
> Only a tiny fraction of what could be used driving under your concepts.

Whatever that means.

>
>>>> Do what you want to do & let me do the same.
>>> The behavior of other people using bicycles directly effects how
>>> motorists treat me.
>
>> I doubt it, but if it did, I'd bet people with your habits would have a
>> much more negative affect than people with mine.
>
> When given a chance to complain, who do they complain about? Here's a
> hint, it's the gutter passers and red light runners.

Not my experience at all. Virtually 100% of the bitching I've heard from
drivers is that "you guys are all over the road", or things to that
effect. I've *never* heard a driver bitch about red light running, only
other cyclists. As others have pointed out on this thread, the real way
to piss off a driver is to "take the lane", AKA drive like a "vehicle".
They absolutely hate that.

Peter Cole

Brent P wrote:
> In article <CeednXQQOec32QDbnZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d@comcast.com>, Peter Cole wrote:
>
>>>> Sure. What possible danger do I pose to them? What potential danger do
>>>> they pose to me? See the difference?
>
>>> You could easily do 1-2 grand in body damage to my property as you
>>> violate the rules. You could easily get yourself hit and do damage to my
>>> property. That's what gutter passers are doing.
>
>> Sorry, I'll call bullshit on this.
>
> You don't know what body work costs. Just repainting is over $300 a
> panel. Run your brake handle along the side of a 2 door car and that's a
> grand right there without even denting anything. A side mirror assembly
> can easily run a couple hundred bucks without painting. Dent a panel...
> well then... anyway price out some body work sometime. People hitting my
> car has allowed me to learn what body work costs.

I think you're tripping.


>
>>>> 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?

Peter Cole

Arif Khokar wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:
>> Brent P wrote:
>
>>> Most people choose an appropiate speed for a road. Speed is off the
>>> table here.
>
>> Oh, BS. One of the most effective things real cycling advocates can do
>> to improve cycling safety is to push for lower speed limits,
>
> Speed limits don't really have much of an effect on actual traffic
> speeds. Underposting limits actually makes things worse for cyclists
> (because more cars will pass those using the left lane(s) on the right,
> which is hazardous to the cyclist in the right lane).

Double BS.

Peter Cole

Brent P wrote:
> In article <Xb6dnf3K5NGf2wDbnZ2dnUVZ_vamnZ2d@comcast.com>, Peter Cole wrote:
>> Brent P wrote:
>>> In article <5g4nqiF3e7ih8U4@mid.individual.net>, brink wrote:
>>>
>>>> Does "following the rules" include motorists not speeding, slow rolls
>>>> through stop signs and right on red, etc? Or are there just certain rules
>>>> that need to be followed by certain segments of the road-using public?
>>> Most people choose an appropiate speed for a road. Speed is off the table
>>> here.
>
>> Oh, BS.
>
> You just showed your ignorance. Google 85th percentile
>
>> One of the most effective things real cycling advocates can do
>> to improve cycling safety is to push for lower speed limits, stiffer
>> fines and better enforcement. Speeding is not a victim-less crime.
>
> Lower speed limits make things WORSE. The worst roads to ride are the
> under posted ones. The low speed limits cause slow drivers to sit in the
> left lane(s) which diverts passing traffic to the right lane. It also
> aggrivates drivers... so now as a bicyclist I am in the right lane
> confronted by an aggrivated driver trying to get around some slow poke in
> the left lane. That doesn't work well. I much prefer properly posted
> roads. The result is a smoother, more orderly traffic flow.
>
>> Do you work for AAA?
>
> Now you really look dumb.
>
>>> I cannot find an
>>> excuse to violate right of way rules while I am bicycling, even the
>>> idiotic speed-control stop signs that I would love to blow off. (stop signs
>>> put in a failed attempt to make people go slower that are VERY annoying
>>> driving or bicycling)
>
>> Traffic calming is great.
>
> The way it's typically done is shit for both bicyclists and drivers. Also
> it is not effective.
>
>> It's the only real solution to getting more
>> people on bikes. Cyclists should be exempt from them, though. We're not
>> the problem that's being addressed, excess speed is.
>
> The problem is that speed limits aren't set appropiately everywhere. This
> causes problems where they are set appropiately.
>
>

Triple BS.

Dave Vandervies

In article <q4qdnXgKWuaq0ADbnZ2dnUVZ_vqpnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:

> If you can't
>read, usenet might not be the place for you.

Anecdotal evidence, collected both here and elsewhere on usenet,
suggests that this claim is entirely detached from reality, and is at
best a statement of The Way Things Should Be.


dave

--
Dave Vandervies dj3vande@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
Your example code didn't compile, and your explanation about function
parameters was broken. What would you call a person who makes an excessive
or inappropriate display of ignorance? --Richard Heathfield in CLC