When to honk at a bicyclist



Zoot Katz <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> 22 Oct 2004 13:46:30 -0700,
> <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (R.White) wrote:
>
> >> 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.

> >
> >Not my problem as I don't own a motor vehicle.

>
> The bank took it back?


You wish.

Be honest and post the date too. Sept. 9th, 2002. Don't own it anymore
as I sold it. Of course if you can't be honest with yourself, you're not
going to be with anyone else.

>
> Message-ID: <[email protected]>
>
> "Yeah, like those blue Chevy Lumina's. Blend in and go un-noticed,
> except mine sticks out due to it's (so called) odd color. A somewhat
> salmon-gold that when washed and waxed really is noticable. It's weird
> because this is a silly little Escort, but I am constantly having
> people come up and tell me what a beautifull color my car is and that
> they have never seen a color like it. I think it's officially a
> beige."
>
> But you drive anyway?



> Message-ID: <[email protected]>
>
> "I drive on average 250 miles per day. I live in Pa. and
> drive I-80, I-79, Rt's 322, 219 and 28. I drive this year round,
> I drove every day during the last winter and the vehicles I witnessed
> going 70 in such conditons were SUV's.
> When my cruise is set at 70 on the intersate it's very rare that
> a tractor-trailer passes me, but cars and SUV's pass me like I'm
> standing still."


Yep. I drive a company car for my job, never claimed I didn't drive.
I can be honest, you have to lie and spin to fit your emotionally
charged agenda. I doubt you drive because McDonalds doesn't have company
cars for the burger flippers.

> **** off, loon.


You want that supersized?
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Wayne Pein <[email protected]> writes:
>
> Maybe it isn't any more discriminatory than typical. :) But it IS
> discriminatory.
>
> Two big problems as I see it. First, the use of "possible" rather than
> "practicable." Big difference.


Okay, I see your point. I figured the subsequent appearance of
the word "impracticable" would override that, but I agree the
wording is at best obfuscated and confusing.

> Second, I think the sentence "For the
> purpose of this section a bicycle shall be regarded at all times as a
> slow moving vehicle." is a real offender. It ignores actual bicycle
> speed.


In a way, so does the bike-specific keep-right law, in that
it doesn't have wording to explicitly deal with speed. Nor,
as John Forester points out about the keep-right law, does
it explicitly deal with lane width, or how much other traffic
there is, or how motorists should overtake cyclists.

> One little nuance that I have recently become enamored with is the fact
> that in every country, motor vehicle operators are placed closer to the
> centerline rather than the curbline. Here in North America, we drive on
> the right, but the steering wheel is on the left. This is for the very
> real safety reason of improved sightlines.


That's a good example to use to explain to motorists why
bicyclists shouldn't ride close to the curb.


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
 
22 Oct 2004 20:18:43 -0700,
<[email protected]>,
[email protected] (R.White) wrote:

>Yep. I drive a company car for my job, never claimed I didn't drive.
>I can be honest, you have to lie and spin to fit your emotionally
>charged agenda.


Lie? You're the one who started off telling boogie-man myths!

Was it your wife's van or the company car you spent your time washing.

Message-ID: <[email protected]>

"This morning I cut my grass, washed and waxed the van and
took one kid to the emergency room when he put his hand through
a glass door. . ."

Date: 18 Sep 2004
--
zk
 
Wayne Pein wrote in part:

<< I take a different approach. I think a bicyclist should automatically be
entitled to the right lane if he chooses. Also, I ride as far left as
practicable whether vehicles are overtaking or attempting to overtake or
not. >>

It wouldn't kill ya to cooperate a little bit. If you
tried it I think you would be pleasantly surprised
to find it makes everybody's drive easier, yours
included.

Robert
 
Zoot Katz, <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> 22 Oct 2004 20:18:43 -0700,
> <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (R.White) wrote:
>
> >Yep. I drive a company car for my job, never claimed I didn't drive.
> >I can be honest, you have to lie and spin to fit your emotionally
> >charged agenda.

>
> Lie? You're the one who started off telling boogie-man myths!
>
> Was it your wife's van or the company car you spent your time washing.


Wifes van. She wanted it, she works and can afford to
do want she wants. I'm not an ass like yourself and wash it for her
if she asks me too. The company car has an account at a local car
wash. Anything else you want to know? My garage has one Nissan quest
van in it and 8 bicycles. Co. car sits out on the street. I walked 32
miles and biked 44 miles last week. My job affords me varying amounts
of free time during the day when I walk, hike and geocache. If I have
no clients that day, I put my bike in the back seat and take it with me,
hence I sometimes wind up with more walking miles than biking.
I will buy myself a vehicle in the spring to haul 3 kayaks.
The wife is looking to trade her van for a Saturn so I won't be able to
use it for the kayaks unless she gets a Saturn wagon.
When my wife takes the kids to soccer (yes, how cliched), I walk or
ride my bike there as I have had enough driving for the day. My wife
and I have to very different views on what and where people
should or should not drive. Doesn't affect our relationship one way
or another.

Feel free to waste more time on Google looking for me. You'll find
my postings coincide with all of this. I've nothing to hide.

You rant and rave against the automobile but you wrote:

"Lee Valley's Vancouver stores have always been dangerously close to
where I live. When I lived in Montreal I'd have to drive to Ottawa for
my tool fix."

You drove? Yeah, let me quess, you USED to drive but now you don't
right?

Same as I USED to own a vehicle and now I don't. Your bigoted rage
keeps you from seeing straight. Spin all you want, it doesn't
change the facts.



> Message-ID: <[email protected]>
>
> "This morning I cut my grass, washed and waxed the van and
> took one kid to the emergency room when he put his hand through
> a glass door. . ."
>
> Date: 18 Sep 2004
 
"B i l l S o r n s o n" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Mike Latondresse wrote:
> > Zoot Katz <[email protected]> wrote in
> > news:[email protected]:
> >
> >> 22 Oct 2004 13:46:30 -0700,
> >> <[email protected]>,
> >> [email protected] (R.White) wrote:
> >>
> >>> Not my problem as I don't own a motor vehicle.
> >>
> >> The bank took it back?
> >>

> sniped good stuff
> >>
> >> **** off, loon.

> >
> > Do you think he is going to have a come-back to that Zoot??

>
> My bet is, he will. I'm /guessing/ that Zoot is mixing up two "R.White"s.
>
> Bill "so the question will be, will Zoot apologize if that's the case?" S.


There's no mix up. The company I work for provides me with a car to do
my job. I travel throughout western Pennsylvania 5 days a week.

My Escort wagon was sold in March 2003 to a neighbor at which time
my wife purchased her Nissan Quest. Maybe Zoot thinks people own the
same car forever? I know he used to drive, maybe still does.
 
Mike Latondresse <mikelat@no_spamshaw.ca> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Zoot Katz <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> > 22 Oct 2004 13:46:30 -0700,
> > <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] (R.White) wrote:
> >
> >>Not my problem as I don't own a motor vehicle.

> >
> > The bank took it back?
> >

> sniped good stuff
> >
> > **** off, loon.

>
> Do you think he is going to have a come-back to that Zoot??


No I don't. I had a witty retort for his often used "whackadoos" and he
had to go and throw "loon" in there.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (R15757) writes:

> Tom,
>
> The way I read your general slow-moving vehicle law, if you go that route and
> ditch the bike code, you will also lose the right to take a lane if the lane is
> skinny, or to take a lane when moving the same speed as motor traffic ("at all
> times a slow moving vehicle").


Well, that one is just the municipal by-law. It doesn't seem
to be enforced. I admit I don't know if the bicycle provisions
in the more general provincial Motor Vehicle Act take
precedence over it. I wouldn't be surprised if the by-law is
so worded for the convenience of the police -- maybe it's an
ace up their sleeve in case they ever decide to crack down
on Critical Mass. Maybe I should bring the matter up with
our local cadre of cycling advocates.

> The reason there is that list of exceptions in
> the bike code is because different people have different ideas of what
> "impracticable" means, and the vehicularists won a great victory getting the
> word defined in their interest. The bike code is bike-friendly.


In his Effective Cycling, Forester accounts a different
history of those exceptions, and in fact takes credit
(or blame) for them. Of course in the world according
to Forester he practically invented cycling, so grains
of salt are called for.

> << None of this legislation eternally banishes slow moving
> vehicles to the right-hand gutter, with no legal right
> to make left turns or avoid obstacles or hazards... >>
>
> Don't be so sure. Cars don't have to move left to avoid the kind of debris and
> damage that cyclists must avoid. And what other slow-moving vehicle besides a
> bike/cyclist would be concerned about lane width?


I believe (wrongly?) that good ol' catch-all: 'practicable'
as it appears in the general slow-moving vehicle law should
cover those situations. At those times when a bicycle isn't
a slow moving vehicle, it's just another vehicle (in
jurisdictions where it's defined as a vehicle.)

> << Of course cyclists here aren't required to ride over
> bad shoulder pavement, or into obstacles or hazards
> on the shoulder. >>
>
> If you ditch the bike code, I think you would be legally obligated to ride over
> bad shoulder pavement.
>
> Anyway, what's the problem?


No big deal. I just maintain the keep-right law is
primarily concerned with the convenience of motorists.
That vehicular cyclists had to, as you say in a
subsequent post, "fight long and hard" for all those
exceptions, and to define 'practicable' as it appears
in the code, is tragic. And the law as it stands is
still too open to interpretation, and too covered with
band-aids (all those exceptions).

> Cyclists have more freedom and get away with far
> more than any other class of road user.


Freedom ain't necessarily legislated rights, though.

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca
 
23 Oct 2004 05:44:48 -0700,
<[email protected]>,
[email protected] (R.White) wrote:

>Your bigoted rage
>keeps you from seeing straight. Spin all you want, it doesn't
>change the facts.


I care spit about your domestic configuration or your stinky toys.

The fact is you're spreading myths because you're unable to accept
cagers act like scum whenever they figure they can get away with it,
scum.
--
zk
 
23 Oct 2004 06:02:38 -0700,
<[email protected]>,
[email protected] (R.White) wrote:

>
>No I don't. I had a witty retort for his often used "whackadoos" and he
>had to go and throw "loon" in there.


How about you just stick to addressing the issue? That is, your
attachment to fear has infected you so now you're propagating the
vengeful boogie-man myth.

You're looking for an excuse to blame cyclists for drivers behaviour.
Face it, you're not going to be assaulted because I jumped a curb.
Stay on your FMUP if you're worried about it.
--
zk
 
[email protected] (R.White) wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>
> You rant and rave against the automobile but you wrote:
>
> "Lee Valley's Vancouver stores have always been dangerously close
> to where I live. When I lived in Montreal I'd have to drive to
> Ottawa for my tool fix."
>
> You drove? Yeah, let me quess, you USED to drive but now you don't
> right?


Zoot you wus....you drove to Ottawa instead of riding!!
 
R15757 wrote:

> Wayne Pein wrote in part:
>
> << I take a different approach. I think a bicyclist should automatically be
> entitled to the right lane if he chooses. Also, I ride as far left as
> practicable whether vehicles are overtaking or attempting to overtake or
> not. >>
>
> It wouldn't kill ya to cooperate a little bit. If you
> tried it I think you would be pleasantly surprised
> to find it makes everybody's drive easier, yours
> included.
>
> Robert


Robert,

You have no idea how I ride. It is conjecture to think the way I ride
makes it difficult for others or myself.

Regards,
Wayne
 
Sat, 23 Oct 2004 18:19:44 GMT,
<[email protected]>,
Mike Latondresse <mikelat@no_spamshaw.ca> wrote:

>>
>> You drove? Yeah, let me quess, you USED to drive but now you don't
>> right?

>
>Zoot you wus....you drove to Ottawa instead of riding!!


Yep, twice in three winters. Went a couple times as passenger too.
--
zk
 
Tom Keats wrote in part:

<< In his Effective Cycling, Forester accounts a different
history of those exceptions, and in fact takes credit
(or blame) for them. Of course in the world according
to Forester he practically invented cycling, so grains
of salt are called for. >>

I think we can thank Forester and his (pardon me)
sniveling minions for a lot of the comforts enjoyed by
today's urban cyclists--in large part Forester is
responsible for AASHTO wide curb lanes, bike lanes
painted to the left of right turn lanes, and smooth
concrete MUPs that flow underneath major streets.
Also, as I mentioned, the various exceptions to the
ride-to-the-right rule. A lot of that stuff didn't turn
out nearly as Forester had hoped--he would rather see
NO bike lanes and NO ride-to-the-right rule--but
compromise is/was/shall be inevitable. And that's my
basic problem with Forester: in his writings, he doesn't
seem to understand or accept the idea of
compromise.

<< No big deal. I just maintain the keep-right law is
primarily concerned with the convenience of motorists.
That vehicular cyclists had to, as you say in a
subsequent post, "fight long and hard" for all those
exceptions, and to define 'practicable' as it appears
in the code, is tragic. And the law as it stands is
still too open to interpretation, and too covered with
band-aids (all those exceptions).

> Cyclists have more freedom and get away with far
> more than any other class of road user.


Freedom ain't necessarily legislated rights, though. >>

With a legitimate place in both the pedestrian and
vehicular realms, cyclists have more legit legislated
freedom than any other class of road user. In addition
to that, cyclists take advantage of other non-
legislated freedoms, so it's really no contest.

North American cyclists have it damn easy.
Considering that cars and trucks are objects of
worship here, it's a remarkably lucky and precarious
situation that cyclists have as much power as we do.
We need to appreciate what we have and work to keep
it. Best way to do that is to continue riding streets in
a cooperative, common-sense fashion.

Forget about the ride-to-the-right law and its
byzantine asterisks and permutations. Nobody knows
it anyway. Thinking about laws while out riding in
traffic is pointless, at best it's secondary to the task
at hand.

Robert
 

>
> It wouldn't kill ya to cooperate a little bit. If you
> tried it I think you would be pleasantly surprised
> to find it makes everybody's drive easier, yours
> included.
>
> Robert


Wayne Pein wrote:

You have no idea how I ride. It is conjecture to think the way I ride
makes it difficult for others or myself. >>


I thought you just told us how you ride, as if you were the only human being on
the planet. My mistake.


<< > Wayne Pein wrote in part:
>
> << I take a different approach. I think a bicyclist should automatically be
> entitled to the right lane if he chooses. Also, I ride as far left as
> practicable whether vehicles are overtaking or attempting to overtake or
> not. >>
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Wayne Pein <[email protected]> writes:

>> It depends. Not automatically. I think it's easier for the cyclist and
>> everybody else if bikes and cars take advantage of available lane-sharing
>> oppportunities. However, with no vehicles overtaking, I'm as far left as
>> practicable, not right.
>>

>
> I take a different approach. I think a bicyclist should automatically be
> entitled to the right lane if he chooses. Also, I ride as far left as
> practicable whether vehicles are overtaking or attempting to overtake or
> not.


Makes me consider another problem with the keep-right law:
say, a cyclist is comfortably sharing an unobstructed 14'
wide lane. Then the lane widens a further 2' on his right.
Should he scootch rightward 2 feet? I don't think so --
everything is already fine where he is, which is where
drivers are better able to see him. But the keep-right law
says otherwise.

It's better for riders while lane sharing to position
themselves relative to the traffic on the left, rather
than relative to the edge of the road on the right.
But the keep-right law obviates that prerogative.


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
 
Zoot Katz <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> 23 Oct 2004 05:44:48 -0700,
> <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (R.White) wrote:
>
> >Your bigoted rage
> >keeps you from seeing straight. Spin all you want, it doesn't
> >change the facts.

>
> I care spit about your domestic configuration or your stinky toys.


I guess that's why you been foaming at the mouth for the last
week!

> The fact is you're spreading myths because you're unable to accept
> cagers act like scum whenever they figure they can get away with it,
> scum.


No, the fact is you're as bigoted towards cagers as some of them are
towards cyclists, bigot.
 
Zoot Katz <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> 23 Oct 2004 06:02:38 -0700,
> <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (R.White) wrote:
>
> >
> >No I don't. I had a witty retort for his often used "whackadoos" and he
> >had to go and throw "loon" in there.

>
> How about you just stick to addressing the issue? That is, your
> attachment to fear has infected you so now you're propagating the
> vengeful boogie-man myth.


The issue has been addressed. Another poster provided an example and
you refuse to accept it because it flies in the face of your bigoted,
one track mind.
 
"R.White" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Zoot Katz <[email protected]> wrote in message

news:<[email protected]>...
> > 23 Oct 2004 06:02:38 -0700,
> > <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] (R.White) wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >No I don't. I had a witty retort for his often used "whackadoos" and he
> > >had to go and throw "loon" in there.

> >
> > How about you just stick to addressing the issue? That is, your
> > attachment to fear has infected you so now you're propagating the
> > vengeful boogie-man myth.

>
> The issue has been addressed. Another poster provided an example and
> you refuse to accept it because it flies in the face of your bigoted,
> one track mind.

When did he get an upgrade to a one-track mind? In fact,
when did he get a mind at all?
 
Tom Keats wrote in part:

<< Makes me consider another problem with the keep-right law:
say, a cyclist is comfortably sharing an unobstructed 14'
wide lane. Then the lane widens a further 2' on his right.
Should he scootch rightward 2 feet? I don't think so --
everything is already fine where he is, which is where
drivers are better able to see him. But the keep-right law
says otherwise.>>
>>


That's a good point. But it's academic. If the lane is
that wide, and the car and bike are comfortably
sharing it, there will be no conflict when the lane gets
even wider--unless the motorist or the cyclist decide
they WANT a conflict and throw up a "contrived
hindrance."

The ride-to-the-right rule exists because some
cyclists simply refuse to share the lane, no matter
how wide it is.

Robert
 

Similar threads

H
Replies
7
Views
501
B