Re: OT: joining the ranks of two wheelers again

Peter Cole

Brent P wrote:


>> 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.

Sure you can, you do already. It's simply a matter of degree.


>> From all accounts, China worked pretty well until they threw cars into
>> the mix.
>
> Guess you never saw the chaos.

The stats are available.


>
>> 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.

Check the stats, straw man.

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

Nope, I just don't think cyclists should be hobbled by rules with no
rational sense.

I still don't know who/what muffy is.

>> 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.

Thanks for the warmth. I'd just make your "predictable rules" different
for the two populations. Not hard, really.

>
> 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.
>
>

??????

brink

"Brent P" <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:q4qdnXoKWubr0wDbnZ2dnUVZ_vrinZ2d@comcast.com...
> 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.

Given enough time, the probability of anything happening (being hit while
bicycling "following the rules" or not... or being struck by lightning
while typing on usenet) approaches 1. I'll take my chances bending the
rules -- safely, IMO -- when and where I deem appopriate. I'll pay the
consequences and have no one to blame but myself if it comes to that.

brink

brink

"Arif Khokar" <akhokar1234@wvu.edu> wrote in message
news:amani.12322$B25.6382@news01.roc.ny...
> brink wrote:
>
>> There's a world of difference between a rolling stop through a stop sign
>> and BLOWING through it on your bicycle...
>
> Many stop signs are not needed. Yield signs would suffice. In fact, part
> of my bicycle commute involves going through a roundabout. I like it
> because I don't have to stop, or even slow down, if there's no traffic to
> yield to, unlike an unwarranted stop sign.

Agreed. It's just common sense. Drive at a safe speed, proceed through a
stop sign at a SLOW safe speed (after properly yielding right of way of
course), etc. Same applies for bikes and though I mainly eschew sidewalk
riding there are times it's very much convenient and prudent to do so -- for
short stretches and in unusual circumstances.

brink

Peter Cole

John David Galt wrote:

> Because the kind of cyclists who do this regard it as drivers' problem
> if they get stuck behind the cyclist on a narrow section of the street
> as a direct result.

Well of course it is.

> Those cyclists are asking to be run off the road.

No, they're not.

> It's just common sense to be unwilling to remain behind a fundamentally
> slower road user.

It's a fact of life, get over it.

> Cyclists who won't respect this need to be taught
> their place.

Their place is on the road. There are times that a cyclist will delay a
motorist and there are times the situation is reversed.

Nate Nagel

Peter Cole wrote:
> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>> I fully expect to get hassled by a cop eventually for impeding traffic
>> but it hasn't happened yet.
>
>
> Why? As a cyclist, you have a right to use the road, while as a motorist
> you have a conditionally granted privilege. Bicycle riders don't require
> licenses, registrations or insurance. You are operating under an
> inferiority complex and compensating for it with overly deferential
> behavior. That's fine, if you want to go that way, but it's only your
> personal trip -- it certainly has nothing to do with reality.

I meant for obeying the speed limit to the letter in my car, not for
cycling.

nate

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

Zoot Katz

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 18:18:58 -0500,
tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:

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

Oh, I do love a good series of speed bumps.

It's so much fun to hear you chuckle heads scrape bottom in your
desperate attempts to get ahead of the bicycle. I get to laugh at
your stupidity every time I have to steer around the busted plastic
car crap you filth-bags leave laying in the road..
--
zk

Nate Nagel

Peter Cole wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>
>> In article <mKCdnY-WK4DjKAHbnZ2dnUVZ_jKdnZ2d@comcast.com>, Peter Cole
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Nate Nagel wrote:
>>>
>>>> I fully expect to get hassled by a cop eventually for impeding
>>>> traffic but it hasn't happened yet.
>>>
>>> Why? As a cyclist, you have a right to use the road, while as a
>>> motorist you have a conditionally granted privilege.
>>
>>
>> 1) He was talking about driving the underposted speed limit. Speed
>> limits are so poorly set that driving them is impeding traffic.
>
>
> Really? That's hard to believe. How do you judge it to be "underposted"
> (a word I've never even heard before)? Where I come from speed limits
> are set with well defined guidelines -- it's considered an engineering
> discipline. How are things set in IL? Random lots?

that's how they appear to be set here in VA. If you care to read up for
it, DAGS for "85th percentile speed limit" (which is a short description
of the engineering principle which defines how speed limits are
*supposed* to be set, but rarely are.) Compliance with the limit is
somewhere between zero and five percent outside rush hour on major
highways. No, I can't provide cites other than personal experience
because either a) the required engineering speed surveys haven't been
done or b) the information is not easily available to the general public.

>
> It's even harder to believe someone would fear being pulled over for
> driving the posted speed limit -- that's why assumed the context was biking

Driving the posted on the roads that I generally commute on is appx. 15
MPH slower than the main flow of traffic. SL is 55, most are doing 70
or more whenever they can't see a cop. But the new multi-kilobuck
"fees" are more than I can afford, even though the risks of being the
unlucky driver pulled are tiny. I am not a person blessed with luck, so
no sense tempting fate.

nate

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

Nate Nagel

Arif Khokar wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:
>
>> I don't want equal status, I want preferential status and I think
>> that's a reasonable attitude given the relative vulnerabilities and
>> liabilities.
>
>
> That's a selfish attitude on your part. If you want to use roads, then
> you should be willing to follow the right-of-way rules.

what he said.

nate

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

Nate Nagel

brink wrote:
> "Arif Khokar" <akhokar1234@wvu.edu> wrote in message
> news:amani.12322$B25.6382@news01.roc.ny...
>
>>brink wrote:
>>
>>
>>>There's a world of difference between a rolling stop through a stop sign
>>>and BLOWING through it on your bicycle...
>>
>>Many stop signs are not needed. Yield signs would suffice. In fact, part
>>of my bicycle commute involves going through a roundabout. I like it
>>because I don't have to stop, or even slow down, if there's no traffic to
>>yield to, unlike an unwarranted stop sign.
>
>
> Agreed. It's just common sense. Drive at a safe speed, proceed through a
> stop sign at a SLOW safe speed (after properly yielding right of way of
> course), etc. Same applies for bikes and though I mainly eschew sidewalk
> riding there are times it's very much convenient and prudent to do so -- for
> short stretches and in unusual circumstances.
>
> brink
>
>

That wasn't what I was referring to when I made my original post that
started this whole mild flamewar. I was referring to the common
practice of cyclists completely ignoring stop signs. Yes, it is nearly
universal, at least in my area.

nate

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

Brent P

In article <1oKdnU3JdY9nzwDbnZ2dnUVZ_u_inZ2d@comcast.com>, Peter Cole wrote:

> Triple BS.

Translation: You know I'm right after googling.

Brent P

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.

Brent P

In article <5g53s5F3dqp3aU1@mid.individual.net>, brink wrote:
>
> "Brent P" <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:q4qdnXoKWubr0wDbnZ2dnUVZ_vrinZ2d@comcast.com...
>> 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.
>
> Given enough time, the probability of anything happening (being hit while
> bicycling "following the rules" or not... or being struck by lightning
> while typing on usenet) approaches 1. I'll take my chances bending the
> rules -- safely, IMO -- when and where I deem appopriate. I'll pay the
> consequences and have no one to blame but myself if it comes to that.

12 years ago when I still believed in 'bending the rules' everyone in the
bicycling newsgroups soundly chastised me. Have the POB's taken over or
something?

Brent P

In article <1oKdnVPJdY86zwDbnZ2dnUVZ_u_inZ2d@comcast.com>, Peter Cole wrote:
> 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.

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?

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman

Peter Cole wrote:
> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Cyclist's right to use the road goes back to the middle ages, if not
> further.

There were bicycles before the mid 19th Century?

> In other words, it was built-in, no laws had to be passed to
> grant them the right (that's why it's called a right). Motor vehicles
> have always required permission and compliance with an ever stricter set
> of codes.
>
> You can't ban bicycles from public roads.

Really? Bicycles are banned from most controlled access roads in the US.

Banning bicycles from certain non-controlled access has been seriously
considered in the Texas Legislature.

Some local streets even ban bicycles.

> 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.

> 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?

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



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