When to honk at a bicyclist



Wed, 20 Oct 2004 02:24:25 GMT,
<t%[email protected]>,
"neil0502" <[email protected]> concluded:

>He might have been primed and ready _anyway_, but somebody else set
>him off . . . and we had to pay for it.

I'm sure, he'd met jerks on bikes before and you're likely to meet
more jerks on horses too.
You met a whackadoo. Luck of the draw.
>
>Again, _no_ downside to operating (horses, bikes, and cars)
>courteously.

On the streets, I extend what courtesies I get, and as a rule, always
give idiots the benefit of doubt.
--
zk
 
Zoot Katz <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> 19 Oct 2004 13:32:34 -0700,
> <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (R.White) wrote:
>
> >Wrong answer. I don't ride with any fear of the sort. If I did, show
> >me where.
> >I also never claimed anyone would be assualting anybody with a car,
> >that was something you dreamed up do to your being unable to control
> >your anger at cagers. It could be a bottle thrown, spit upon or any
> >number of things. Point is a$$hole cyclists make it bad for all.
> >Period.
>
> No, flat-fizzed. Cagers learn their crappy attitudes from other
> cagers, not from cyclists.

They learn their crappy attutudes towards cyclists from cyclists.

> I don't have to filter forward for you to catch a beer bottle. The
> shitflake who threw it doesn't need an excuse. Its a shitflake.

Keep believing that. When I listen to a driver spout about
some cyclists he encountered earlier, I know otherwise.


> We could all be sweet and pleasant and the caged scum would still
> assault us merely because they can. The small chance of their being
> caught or their crime (assault) being taken seriously by a prejudicial
> car-centric society are more plausible factors determining their
> actions than whether they've a particular hard-on against cyclists.

You cannot even form a sentence without resorting to something
like "caged scum". You behave just like them and continue to
prove my point. Keep up the good work.

> We're targets simply because they're shitflakes.
> Always have been and always will be.
>
> What I notice most frequently that could remotely be associated to
> fallout from scofflaw cycling, is that some drivers are more cautious
> around cyclists at intersections not knowing whether or not we'll stop
> for the sign.

And the time you run one and get hit you'll say it was
their fault!

>
> You don't know how I ride, so STFU.

That's funny coming from a guy who accused me of being "ready to
excuse murderous drivers assaulting cyclists" along with my
"deplorable
habits". You don't know what I drive, when I drive, or if I even
own a car. HYPOCRITE.
 
Zoot Katz <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> 19 Oct 2004 13:36:06 -0700,
> <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> (R.White) wrote:
>
> >>
> >> >You know it as well as I do and you know they
> >> >feel that way because of the actions of a few. Those few affect
> >> >most of us eventually.
> >>
> >> I'm insisting that you prove to me how you're directly affected.
> >> Otherwise, you're making up boogie man stories.
> >
> >And I'll insist that you prove your selfish, unsafe actions never
> >caused a cager to show ill feeling and actions towards another
> >cyclist.
>
> With all due respect, **** OFF, loon.

Waaaa! Just what I expected your answer would be.

> It was your premise that you're getting static for what I do.
> I say you're FOS with your boogie man myth.

Yeah, It was a myth until Neil told of his encounter with the horse
riders. Now what's your excuse?

> Why can't you accept that caged scum will always be scum regardless of
> how you or I ride?

I will when you accept that being a scofflaw affects others.

> So, take responsiblity for your own actions and quit looking for a
> scapegoat, whiner.

Scofflaw.
 
20 Oct 2004 12:08:39 -0700,
<[email protected]>,
apologist butt-kisser [email protected] (R.White) wrote:

>You don't know what I drive, when I drive, or if I even
>own a car. HYPOCRITE.

You're in love with your ****-box Ford. Go suck its tailpipe.
--
zk
 
20 Oct 2004 12:08:39 -0700,
<[email protected]>,
apologist butt-kisser [email protected] (R.White) wrote:

>You don't know what I drive, when I drive, or if I even
>own a car. HYPOCRITE.

You're in love with your ****-box Ford. Go suck its tailpipe.
--
zk
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Zoot Katz <[email protected]> writes:
> Wed, 20 Oct 2004 02:24:25 GMT,
> <t%[email protected]>,
> "neil0502" <[email protected]> concluded:
>
>>He might have been primed and ready _anyway_, but somebody else set
>>him off . . . and we had to pay for it.
>
> I'm sure, he'd met jerks on bikes before and you're likely to meet
> more jerks on horses too.
> You met a whackadoo. Luck of the draw.

The angry horsie guy reminded me of the comix character:
Reid Fleming, Toughest Milkman in the World.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca
 
Wed, 20 Oct 2004 15:57:13 -0700, <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Tom Keats) wrote:

>The angry horsie guy reminded me of the comix character:
>Reid Fleming, Toughest Milkman in the World.

I think of him every time I see a roque mallet.
--
zk
 
20 Oct 2004 12:15:40 -0700,
<[email protected]>,
[email protected] (R.White) wrote:

>
>> It was your premise that you're getting static for what I do.
>> I say you're FOS with your boogie man myth.
>
>Yeah, It was a myth until Neil told of his encounter with the horse
>riders. Now what's your excuse?

Neil met a whackadoo on a FMUP.
I suppose that's your fault. I ride on the streets.

I've met a few whackadoos too but none on horses. I don't ride on
FMUPs.

What makes you think that a frustrated inveterate scud jockey would
change their attitude if all the bicycles disappeared?

You caged pukes will then just find somebody else to harass.
--
zk
 
Stoned again,Zoot Katz <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> 20 Oct 2004 12:15:40 -0700,
> <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (R.White) wrote:
>
> >
> >> It was your premise that you're getting static for what I do.
> >> I say you're FOS with your boogie man myth.
> >
> >Yeah, It was a myth until Neil told of his encounter with the horse
> >riders. Now what's your excuse?
>
> Neil met a whackadoo on a FMUP.
> I suppose that's your fault. I ride on the streets.

Nice excuse.

> I've met a few whackadoos too but none on horses. I don't ride on
> FMUPs.
>
> What makes you think that a frustrated inveterate scud jockey would
> change their attitude if all the bicycles disappeared?

I don't think that. I don't think adding fuel to the fire
is a solution to the problem.


>
> You caged pukes will then just find somebody else to harass.

What does "you" mean? Tell me how many cars or SUV's I own?

You think you have it all figured out, but as much as I
hate to admit it, you and I are more alike than we are different.
That statement is based on logic and fact, not emotion.
Try it sometime.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Badger_South <[email protected]> writes:

> Here's where you say, 'how many times have you seen that behavior?' If they
> say all the time, then you say, 'have you considered taking a different
> route?' That's when you'll really get blasted, b/c to suggest to a driver
> that they change their driving behavior is unheard of! ;-D

On that note I'll point out that the three traffic laws aimed
specifically at cyclists -- mandatory side path, mandatory
bike lane, and keep as far right (in North America) as
practicable -- are entirely about motorists' convenience.

To my knowledge there are no similar laws aimed at motorists
for the convenience of cyclists. Not that I particularly
want any special treatment. But ... equal, schmequal.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca
 
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 13:22:56 -0700, [email protected] (Tom Keats) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> Badger_South <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Here's where you say, 'how many times have you seen that behavior?' If they
>> say all the time, then you say, 'have you considered taking a different
>> route?' That's when you'll really get blasted, b/c to suggest to a driver
>> that they change their driving behavior is unheard of! ;-D
>
>On that note I'll point out that the three traffic laws aimed
>specifically at cyclists -- mandatory side path, mandatory
>bike lane, and keep as far right (in North America) as
>practicable -- are entirely about motorists' convenience.
>
>To my knowledge there are no similar laws aimed at motorists
>for the convenience of cyclists. Not that I particularly
>want any special treatment. But ... equal, schmequal.
>
>
>cheers,
> Tom

I was stunned to learn that Newport News actually has a law the makes it
illegal to ride in the street if there's a bike path adjacent. Guess you
have to tunnel under the roadway to cross the street, sheesh. This is -so-
retarded. What if there's a hole or fallen tree across the bike lane. and
you need to detour? I didn't see any 'reasonably accessible', or 'unless
the traffic pattern won't permit', or anything. That means you get hit in
the road near a bike path, and you're just so much road kill.

I'm mean I'm being cranky, but dayum...put in bike paths but leave the
restrictions out of it, please. You'd think there were hoards of unruly
cyclists that need corralled, lest they take over the roads like locust!
;-<

-B
 
Wayne Pein wrote in part:

<< Bicyclists do not and should not have to worry about causing overtaking
motorists to have to slow down, whether there is a "need" to
purposefully do so or not. And there is no need to be aware of
approaching motor vehicles. All the bicyclist must do is be predictable
and hold a consistent line. In other words, one can be deaf and still
drive a bike, as one can be deaf and drive a motor vehicle. The burden
of overtaking is on the overtaker. >>


That's a fantasy. In reality, riding successfully in heavy traffic is dependent
on a 360-degree awareness of nearby road users. If your ears don't work, you'd
better get a mirror.

Robert
 
Tom Keats wrote in part:

<< On that note I'll point out that the three traffic laws aimed
specifically at cyclists -- mandatory side path, mandatory
bike lane, and keep as far right (in North America) as
practicable -- are entirely about motorists' convenience. >>

The last one is convenient for motorists, but really
the law is about the overall flow of traffic, of which
cyclists are a part. It is just a version of slower
vehicle keep right. The law is not a slap in the face to
cyclists, especially when you consider that most
jurisdictions add a long list of exceptions to the rule--
for cyclists' safety and convenience.

Robert
 
"Badger_South" <[email protected]> wrote

>
> I was stunned to learn that Newport News actually has a law the makes it
> illegal to ride in the street if there's a bike path adjacent.

The only saving grace is that Newport News has very few actual "bike paths".
The onse they do have are literally upsized sidewalks.

And FWIW, I've never, ever, been stopped for not obeying this 'law'.

Pete
 
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 04:00:45 GMT, "Pete"
<ptr@ThievingBastardsWorkAt_usaf.com> wrote:

>
>"Badger_South" <[email protected]> wrote
>
>>
>> I was stunned to learn that Newport News actually has a law the makes it
>> illegal to ride in the street if there's a bike path adjacent.
>
>The only saving grace is that Newport News has very few actual "bike paths".
>The onse they do have are literally upsized sidewalks.
>
>And FWIW, I've never, ever, been stopped for not obeying this 'law'.
>
>Pete

Hey Pete, that's good to know, but the upshot of this law is not the
primary enforcement...it's that you may lack legal backing if you have an
accident in the street and you're near a bike trail...that's all.

Where do you guys like to ride in NN? My folks live near Mariner's museum,
and I'm looking for some rides for Thanksgiving.

Best,

-B
 
21 Oct 2004 10:59:20 -0700,
<[email protected]>, [email protected]
(R.White) wrote:
>
>What does "you" mean? Tell me how many cars or SUV's I own?
>
Frankly, that's your problem. Driving any one of them is when it
becomes a problem for the rest of us. We have to clean up the messes.

>You think you have it all figured out, but as much as I
>hate to admit it, you and I are more alike than we are different.
>That statement is based on logic and fact, not emotion.
>Try it sometime.

About the only basis for that logic is the fact that we both ****
standing up.

Your adherence to your beloved boogie-man myth is an emotional
response to your own fears rooted in the cyclists inferiority
superstition. I don't worry as much about the loon hunters that you
figure are stalking you. They're statistically unlikely to harm me for
what others do. That's a fact.

Don't try blaming anyone but the perpetrator. They're the product of
generations of car-centric classist society that glorifies reckless
driving, stupidity and violence in its entertainment

From their very first appearance cyclists were and still are scorned
by other road users.

I ride my bike everywhere. I ride as part of traffic.That I
consistently arrive at my destinations without incident fairly proves
that my conduct in traffic is within acceptable bounds.

Unless scofflaw cyclists are directly endangering me with their
antics, I'm just thankful they're not driving trucks like that. Nor do
I credit them with extra dimensional powers to invoke the cosmic
revenge of raging caged whackadoos.

I don't stop at stop signs if there's nobody around to witness my not
stopping. I take the lane when it's the place to be. Riding two or
more abreast is illegal here so I won't block other traffic to do it.

Let me know when that beer bottle you catch has my name on it, goof.
--
zk
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (R15757) writes:
> Tom Keats wrote in part:
>
> << On that note I'll point out that the three traffic laws aimed
> specifically at cyclists -- mandatory side path, mandatory
> bike lane, and keep as far right (in North America) as
> practicable -- are entirely about motorists' convenience. >>
>
> The last one is convenient for motorists, but really
> the law is about the overall flow of traffic, of which
> cyclists are a part. It is just a version of slower
> vehicle keep right.

But why is it necessary for a version of that law that
singles-out one /type/ of vehicle -- a type of vehicle
which can sometimes even keep up with the rest of the
traffic?

> The law is not a slap in the face to
> cyclists, especially when you consider that most
> jurisdictions add a long list of exceptions to the rule--
> for cyclists' safety and convenience.

Sure, that works in more enlightened jurisdictions.

If a law needs so many afterthought, add-on exceptions,
what good is it in the first place?

ISTR in one of his articles, John S. Allen considers an
hypothetical situation where this law could be used in
combination with a mandatory bike lane law to the detriment
of an injured-by-car cyclist's insurance claim. The cyclist
encounters a transitory obstacle in the bike lane, such
as a running dog. He has to swerve out of the bike lane
and gets clobbered by a car. Then the dog is long gone,
so the cyclist has nothing to point to as reason for his
leftward manoeuver. By the letter of the law, the cyclist
has violated both the bike lane law and the keep right law.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca
 
Tom Keats wrote:

<< But why is it necessary for a version of that law [slower vehicles keep
right] that
singles-out one /type/ of vehicle -- a type of vehicle
which can sometimes even keep up with the rest of the
traffic? >>

If the law was not written specifically for cyclists,
there could be no exceptions for cyclists, and cyclists
would _always_ be required to keep right, even with
skinny lanes, debris on the right, or whatever.

If you are moving the speed of traffic you can take
whatever lane you want. If you are moving slower than
traffic, move right. That's not really the letter of the
law, but few people, including police, understand the
letter of the ride-to-the-right laws. So we fall back on
common sense, and that works fine.


<< <snip>If a law needs so many afterthought, add-on exceptions,
what good is it in the first place? >>

What are you suggesting--that cyclists should be
exempt from the stay right rules? That everyone
should be exempt from the stay right rules? What is
the alternative?

<< ISTR in one of his articles, John S. Allen considers an
hypothetical situation where this law could be used in
combination with a mandatory bike lane law to the detriment
of an injured-by-car cyclist's insurance claim. The cyclist
encounters a transitory obstacle in the bike lane, such
as a running dog. He has to swerve out of the bike lane
and gets clobbered by a car. Then the dog is long gone,
so the cyclist has nothing to point to as reason for his
leftward manoeuver. By the letter of the law, the cyclist
has violated both the bike lane law and the keep right law.>>

I dont think cyclists are legally required to run over a
dog or any other obstacle in the bike lane. On the other
hand, it is their responsibility to make sure the path is
clear before swerving like a madman out of said lane,
or, if there were no bike lane, swerving from their
established position at the right side of the road. This
wreck would be the responsibility of the dog owner,
partially of the cyclist. Definitely not the motorist's
fault. The dog got away--tough titty. Stuff happens.
There are no magical easy answers.

Robert
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

H
'...a honk and a wave!...'
Replies
7
Views
512
Road Cycling
Bob
B
S
Recovered from accident, bicyclist and his wife to ride acrosscountry
Replies
0
Views
421
Road Cycling
SJ Carter
S
S
Saw an intelligent bicyclist today
Replies
429
Views
8K
Road Cycling
Matthew T. Russotto
M
D
taking out a tree hugger, bicyclist, Frenchman and gay in one shot
Replies
1
Views
416
Road Cycling
Jym Dyer
J
J
Bicyclist falls victim to a RAV
Replies
13
Views
296
Road Cycling
Jorg Lueke
J
Top Bottom Back