water bottles,helmets

At Mon, 11 Jul 2005 13:57:21 -0400, message
<[email hidden]> was posted by The
Wogster <[email hidden]>, including some, all or none of the
following:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Anything that acts as an additional burden or hurdle to deter cycling
is bad, IMO. It's not that I'm against cyclists taking responsibility
for their actions, it's just that I don't believe the scale of the
problem is sufficient to justify the risk of stopping people riding
bikes.

Quoted message said:

Not all riders, just those that are not behaving, so that the laws that
exist can be applied equally to all. By requireing identification, or
some form of bike licence, maybe the cagers will take cyclists more
seriously.

Consider again: a man has a bike in the garage. He decides to do
something about his weight and unfitness. He goes to get the bike
out, then remembers that there is a law requiring him to carry
identification, which he does not have.

Does he:

* give up on the idea
* go out and get the identification
* ride anyway and ignore the law

Of these I'd say the second was the least likely by a long shot.

It's got nothing to do with whether he's intending to break the law or
not (and what's the penalty for not carrying ID?).

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

Quoted message said:

Your claim that it doesn't matter since people aren't ticketed is
beside the legal point.

Yes and no. Practically, what's enforced becomes the working law -- at
least until you get to court.

Quoted message said:

I will agree, I'd like better law enforcement across the board.

I'm not in favor of more enforcement of cycling laws, I think they're
adequately enforced, motoring laws are bot.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

No, I was mocking the snobbery of some cyclists who use the term.

Ah well. You think wanting cyclists to behave legally is snobbery. I
think it's practicality.

No, I think getting more worked up over dumb cyclists than dumb
motorists is dumb.

Quoted message said:

BTW, I've heard similar arguments from yahoos in boomer cars - "You
tight-a**es just don't like good music." Also from the patrons of the
night club half a mile away, blasting music so loud it generated
hundreds of complaints: "If those people don't like it, they should
just move." And, of course, from aggressive drivers: "Those cyclists
shouldn't be on the road anyway. They don't pay taxes."

I don't know where you live, but we have ordinances for noise, among
other things. I think they're reasonable, and if I need enforcement,
I'll ask. I don't particularly think the cyclist ordinances are
reasonable, but as long as the cost of non-compliance is low I can't be
bothered with changing them.

Quoted message said:

IOW, someone who wants to flout the law can always come up with an
excuse that sounds valid to themselves. Even if they're the only one
buying their excuse, it doesn't matter to them!

See above.

Quoted message said:

I see legal cycling as, first of all, a practical tool that allows me
to get around more efficiently and safely.

Stopping for lights kills my "efficiency".

Quoted message said:

I see it secondly as a tool
that tends to earn more legitimacy for cyclists as a whole. Obviously
we disagree.

Cycling is already legitimate enough for me, I don't need it blessed.
I'd just like to see the cost of motorist aggression tweaked up a notch.

Quoted message said:

FWIW, I don't go ballistic over stupid cyclist behavior, but I am
scornful of it. I've seen both motorists and bicyclists blatantly
violate red lights, for example, and I think both are jerks.

Yeah, but even in your world you've got to admit one's a lethal jerk,
the other's a harmless jerk.

Quoted message said:

Wayne Pein said:

Peter Cole said:

I'd really like to see a law here for minimum passing room. Several
states have a 3' requirement. Local advocates are generally opposed
(vehemently) to this.

Dumb law. First, 3 feet is close. Second, it doesn't specify speed
differential. Third, it's unenforceable.

I used to think this was a dumb law, but someone pointed out that it
pretty much kills the excuse "I only hit him because he swerved when he
was riding."

I like it just because it's so easy to scream. I've taken to screaming
it even though it's not the law here. So far no motorist has stopped to
correct me.

Quoted message said:

Peter Cole said:

The law for running red lights with a bicycle is, by definition, already
very different than the law for motor vehicles. The difference reflects
the difference in danger to innocent parties. To that extent, it's
logical and fair.

I agree that public danger imposed by scofflaw motorists is greater
than that imposed by scofflaw cyclists. I think an ideal situation
would be this: Absolute enforcement of all traffic laws, with
penalties based on danger to the public.

I don't think absolute is necessary, the odds are part of the
calculation of cost.

Quoted message said:

Say you had a bike club in your city who's uniform consisted of bright
orange jerseys. Say the members of that bike club routinely ignored
traffic lights on rides, routinely ran every stop sign, routinely rode
on whichever side of the road they thought more convenient, etc., all
while in the orange jerseys.

How long do you think it would take motorists to get hostile when they
saw a club ride approaching in those jerseys?

In my neck of the woods, if you didn't make anybody slow down they
probably wouldn't notice, if not, they'd be hostile even if you were
perfectly legal, then they'd harangue you if they discovered you rode a
bike -- ever.

Motorist hostility isn't rational. Most haven't a clue what the rules
are for cyclists in the first place.

As for signals, I'm in favor of not stopping at all for a right turn
where you have good sight lines and treating all other situations like
stop signs (stop, look & go). That's rational for bikes even co-existing
with cars.

I'd even be willing to work to change the law to reflect this if it
weren't already the de facto case.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Of course we've reached an impasse. You're convinced my behavior is
harmful to you, I'm convinced that your's is somewhat harmful to me. I
don't begrudge you your belief, just the tendency to pontificate about
it.

Hmmm. So are you against things like books, classes, pamplets,
websites etc. that tell people how they're supposed to ride bicycles?

No, not what I said at all. The pontification I object to is that my
behavior harms anyone, it doesn't.

Quoted message said:

Chris Neary said:

While the raw number hasn't varied much over the last 10 years (bouncing
between 37K and 42K fatalities/year), both the per capita and per mile
fatility rates have fallen substantially (16% and 22% roughly).

I'd chalk most of this reduction up to tech improvements in highway design
and auto design.

Don't forget improvements in medicine! I believe ER doctors can save a
much greater percentage of their patients than they could in years
past. This tends to be forgotten in almost every "safety" discussion.

Also don't forget gridlock, you've got to get up enough speed to be lethal.

Peter Cole said:

Quoted message said:

Your claim that it doesn't matter since people aren't ticketed is
beside the legal point.

Yes and no. Practically, what's enforced becomes the working law -- at
least until you get to court.

Or until you try to collect from the insurance company.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Ah well. You think wanting cyclists to behave legally is snobbery. I
think it's practicality.

No, I think getting more worked up over dumb cyclists than dumb
motorists is dumb.

I never said I get _more_ worked up over dumb cyclists. For me, it's
pretty equal. Jerks are jerks, whatever their vehicle.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

BTW, I've heard similar arguments from yahoos in boomer cars - "You
tight-a**es just don't like good music." Also from the patrons of the
night club half a mile away, blasting music so loud it generated
hundreds of complaints: "If those people don't like it, they should
just move." And, of course, from aggressive drivers: "Those cyclists
shouldn't be on the road anyway. They don't pay taxes."

I don't know where you live, but we have ordinances for noise, among
other things. I think they're reasonable, and if I need enforcement,
I'll ask. I don't particularly think the cyclist ordinances are
reasonable, but as long as the cost of non-compliance is low I can't be
bothered with changing them.

I understand your excuse, but my point was that _all_ scofflaws have an
excuse. They're satisfied if they convince only themselves, which
counts for very little. Present company _not_ excepted.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I see legal cycling as, first of all, a practical tool that allows me
to get around more efficiently and safely.

Stopping for lights kills my "efficiency".

Oh, please! I've seen plenty of self-important motorists who will do
anything to get home thirty seconds quicker. It's silly. You, like
they, are not going to do anything important with that time. Relax.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

FWIW, I don't go ballistic over stupid cyclist behavior, but I am
scornful of it. I've seen both motorists and bicyclists blatantly
violate red lights, for example, and I think both are jerks.

Yeah, but even in your world you've got to admit one's a lethal jerk,
the other's a harmless jerk.

Sorry, but I definitely disagree on the "harmless" part.

- Frank Krygowski

Peter Cole said:

Quoted message said:

Hmmm. So are you against things like books, classes, pamplets,
websites etc. that tell people how they're supposed to ride bicycles?

No, not what I said at all. The pontification I object to is that my
behavior harms anyone, it doesn't.

This is interesting, then.

If you had to write a "how to bike" pamplet, say for 14-year-old kids,
what would you say?

"Don't worry about which side of the road to ride on."

"Red lights are really for cars. You'll be more efficient if you
ignore them."

"If you see a stop sign but the coast looks clear, go for it!"

Seriously, many kids don't know what they're supposed to be doing out
there. What would you tell them, in a brief pamplet?

- Frank Krygowski

Mon, 11 Jul 2005 12:20:26 -0400,
<[email hidden]>, The Wogster

Quoted message said:

When that same cager sees you deliberately sailing through stop signs,
failing to signal, and otherwise break the law, they get even madder,
figuring that that is why old guy on old Schwinn was able to pass them,
and the next cyclist they see, becomes a target.

Bulldadda! Typically, scud scum don't even notice you if you aren't
knotting their knickers. Nobody is going to run you down tomorrow
because I didn't wait for a green light last week. To believe so is
paranoid, delusional and just plain stupid.

I'm with Peter on this one though he expresses it more intelligibly
than me. I just say, [censored] all right in their congested dark hearts.
--
Consider the man on horseback, and I have been a man on horseback for
most of my life. Well, mostly he is a good man, but there is a change
in him as soon as he mounts. Every man on horseback is an arrogant
man, however gentle he may be on foot. The man in the automobile is
one thousand times as dangerous. I tell you, it will engender absolute
selfishness in mankind if the driving of automobiles becomes common.
It will breed violence on a scale never seen before. It will mark the
end of the family as we know it, the three or four generations living
happily in one home. It will destroy the sense of neighborhood and the
true sense of Nation. It will create giantized cankers of cities,
false opulence of suburbs, ruinized countryside, and unhealthy
conglomerations of specialized farming and manufacturing, it will
breed rootlessness and immorality. It will make every man a tyrant.
R.A. Lafferty

Quoted message said:

Wayne Pein said:

Peter Cole said:

I'd really like to see a law here for minimum passing room. Several
states have a 3' requirement. Local advocates are generally opposed
(vehemently) to this.

Dumb law. First, 3 feet is close. Second, it doesn't specify speed
differential. Third, it's unenforceable.

I used to think this was a dumb law, but someone pointed out that it
pretty much kills the excuse "I only hit him because he swerved when he
was riding."

- Frank Krygowski

If we take the premise that it is an acceptable law, then at least make
it good and reflect reality/research. Motorists typically pass at least
5 ft (I'm sure it's probably closer in dense urban areas at low speeds).
Bicycles are single track, light weight, unprotected vehicles which
require greater clearance than others.

But the, "he swerved," is a pathetic excuse that panders to
discrimination against cyclists. Reality: The motorist hit him because
he tried to pass the vehicle operator in the same lane. I don't think a
driver would make the "he swerved" excuse on any other vehicle operator
when making an in-lane pass, say for example motorcyclists. This is why
the only law that really matters is having the full rights of drivers of
vehicles and why micromanagement laws written for bicyclists are a problem.

Wayne

Mon, 11 Jul 2005 13:57:21 -0400,
<[email hidden]>, The Wogster

Quoted message said:

By requireing identification, or
some form of bike licence, maybe the cagers will take cyclists more
seriously

[censored] ON 'EM.
Quit worrying about what scud slobs are going to think. Their minds
are already made up.
--
zk

Peter Cole said:

Benjamin Lewis said:

Peter Cole said:

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

Quoted message said:

> False. [Stereotype] has a basis in reality, it is just exaggerated
> out of proportion. Like any other bigotry, in order to be successful
> it must contain at least the germ of truth.

Perhaps that's an accepted meaning in your form of English, it's not in
ours. Bigotry and stereotyping are considered lies, not exaggerations.

Ours?
Merriam-Webster online:
Main Entry: 2stereotype
Function: noun
Etymology: French stéréotype, from stéré- stere- + type
1 : a plate cast from a printing surface
2 : something conforming to a fixed or general pattern;

I think this is the proper meaning in this context:

especially : a

Quoted message said:

standardized mental picture that is held in common by members of a group
and that represents an oversimplified opinion, prejudiced attitude, or
uncritical judgment

from there I would follow the "prejudiced attitude" fork:

"prejudice" [from M-W]

c : an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual,
a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics

I would note the use of "irrational" and "supposed". They do not imply
exaggeration. The idea that racial stereotypes or cultural stereotypes
are merely exaggerations of truth is distasteful.

The idea that since some cyclists break the law, all are guilty, is a
lie, not an exaggeration.

I suspect even most people who believe in stereotypes don't believe *all*
members of the class of people in question conform to the stereotype. The
problem with stereotypes basically boils down to something like "Hmm. I
observe that this class of people have a slightly increased tendency for X
characteristic/behaviour that I find distasteful. Therefore, if I see a
member of this class, I'll *assume* that they probably exhibit this
characteristic/behaviour unless proven wrong for this specific case, and
I'll use this stereotype to discriminate against these people."

I contend that such stereotypes generally have *some* truth to them, in
that, for whatever reason, there may indeed be some increased statistical
tendency in this population, which helps such stereotypes survive. This
does not make discrimination based on this stereotype any less distasteful,
of course, but it does help the stereotype to thrive.

I think another common problem is misattribution of cause for stereotypes
to genetics rather than environment. For instance, in Vancouver I've heard
a stereotype that Asians are poor drivers, but if there is any truth at all
to this, it is certainly because we have a large population of recent Asian
immigrants who are learning new driving rules as adults, not because of
some "inherent lack of driving ability".

--
Benjamin Lewis

All what we got here is American made.
It's a little bit cheesy, but it's nicely displayed. -- FZ

Just zis Guy said:

At Mon, 11 Jul 2005 13:20:34 -0400,

Quoted message said:

This goes to the question of whether these behaviors should be illegal.
I don't think they should.

But they /are/ illegal, and as long as they are we should obey the
law. And for what it's worth I'm with Frank: legal vehicular cycling
buys us much-needed legitimacy.

And I hope you guys get your just rewards, I'm ambivalent at best. BTW,
who is "us"? I asked Frank but he chose not to answer. Is that just you
and Frank, or do you have a club?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This (again) is a drift away from my main point of the absurdity of
cyclists blaming cyclists for motorist behavior.

You keep saying it's absurd, but so far your sole justification seems
to be because lawbreaking is personally convenient to you, so you
choose to discount anything that suggests it might have negative
connotations.

That's a leap.

Quoted message said:

I was using the standard English definition: intolerance and
prejudice. There is good documentary evidence that drivers exhibit
both prejudice and intolerance towards cyclists.

You claimed it was exaggerated truth, I said it was a lie. That's a
pretty big difference.

Quoted message said:

Nobody's asking you to. But even the first paragraph shows that your
claim that I am somehow an apologist for drivers' illegal behaviour is
baseless.

No, if you connect road rage to cyclist behavior, you're an apologist.

Quoted message said:

So you say. Against that we have driver attitude surveys showing that
they characterise cyclists as scofflaws, and repeated crossposted
threads where we are beaten over the head with the illegal behaviour
of cyclists.

Our experience differs markedly, neither of us can explain the differences.

Even if motorists are chronically [censored] at cyclists in your country
because of a few bad apples like me, I'd draw the line at retaliating
with a couple of tons of turbocharged revenge, wouldn't you? Until the
cops get outlaws like me under control shouldn't you be more concerned
with vigilante justice than my nose tweaking?

I think I'm just the more accessible target.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And I favour a zero tolerance approach to all road traffic laws. See?
Not so very different after all.

Quoted message said:

I think that's a very impractical and unbalanced view. It ignores
fundamentals of justice and law enforcement.

No, I think it's supremely practical. If one user group sees they are
being singled out for enforcement they will consider it discriminatory
- you have already said that you feel enforcement against cyclists
falls into this category. The discrimination disappears when all road
users are clearly subject to enforcement activity.

Punishment should fit the crime. Part of the computation of punishment
is the chance of being caught. Making that 100% for all crimes isn't
practical, nor does it really accomplish anything.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The law for running red lights with a bicycle is, by definition, already
very different than the law for motor vehicles. The difference reflects
the difference in danger to innocent parties. To that extent, it's
logical and fair.

Is it? Is it really? Over here it is *the exact same offence*
covered by the same paragraph of the same statute.

Yes, but over here it's never enforced and the maximum penalty is $20
which never changes. For a M-V violation the charges escalate and
enforcement, while spotty, at least occurs. Different law, both on the
books and in the street.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I am not an absolutist, I'll cut corners for practical purposes. I'll
pay the fine.

Yup, and that's just what the motorists say.

I think that's rational, I think their fine should be orders of
magnitude greater because their liability is. Since that is also true, I
have no quibble. I do think that aggression towards cyclists should be
much more expensive than it currently is. I think cyclists are
overcharged where the laws are actually enforced.

Quoted message said:

The real issue (again)

Quoted message said:

is whether blaming cyclists for motorist behavior is accurate or helpful.

No, that's a falsely absolutist representation. The question is
actually whether cyclists breaking the law makes motorist behaviour
better, worse, or the same.

OK, have it your way, I don't see the difference.

Quoted message said:

I think it's inflammatory, so makes driver behaviour worse.

So, bust the drivers.

Quoted message said:

False. I am saying: obey the law. You are saying: it is fine for you
to obey the law, but other road users should not have that freedom.

Your position is arbitrary.

Not really. Everyone has the option to obey the law or not. It's a
question of cost and benefit. Individual cost should somehow reflect
social cost, that's all. Motorists are getting a bargain for the
privilege of indulging their aggression on defenseless cyclists,
cyclists are slightly overcharged.

Not everything should be a capital offense.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I
don't begrudge you your belief, just the tendency to pontificate about
it. I wouldn't have brought the issue up for debate except in self
defense. You seem to reject even the possibility that this question
could have 2 sides.

True enough. I have seen the first side put by several people, the
supposed second side comes down to your assertion that agitation to
clamp down on cyclist misbehaviour is led by cyclists - as far as I
can see that claim is baseless.

I've only seen it in the greater Boston /Cambridge area, I can't claim
to know the world.

Quoted message said:

Again with the libel [censored]. That kind of talk paints you as a
loser.

Whatever. It's a term with a specific meaning, unlike "loser".

Quoted message said:

Bicycles are vehicles, equivalence exists and is enshrined in law in
most places, US or otherwise. Breaking that equivalence is the very
last thing we need - it would give the body of anti-cyclist idiots (of
whom there are many) the excuse to drive us off the roads.

Not likely, stop fear mongering.

Quoted message said:

You /say/ the laws are different, but it looks very much as if they
are not. The penalties are different - rightly so - but the laws are
the same, or substantially so.

Penalty is part of the law -- an important part.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Your claim that minor cyclist
infractions engender acts of motorist homicide is far fetched,
unsubstantiated, and fundamentally dishonest.

Quoted message said:

It might be, if that was my claim. My claim is that your behaviour
adversely affects motorist attitudes towards other cyclists. I think
that claim is well-founded, based on several years of active
participation in Usenet threads where drivers say exactly that, and on
driver surveys which show that driver attitudes to cyclists are
coloured by cyclists' illegal behaviour.

OK, so you stop at attitudes? No claim for attitude->behavior link?

If you had said that initially you might have saved a lot of time. I
couldn't care less about motorist "attitudes"?

Oh, wait, you did mention motorist behavior a couple of times above.

Well, which is it? Peevish motorists or vengeful ones? If vengeful, how
do they mete out their vengeance, with horn or grille?

Am I responsible for your unpopularity or threat to your life and limb?
Don't be shy, this *is* the pivotal question!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Perhaps you could point out where Forester and others blame cyclists for
motorist aggression? I missed that.

Perhaps you are unable to tell the difference between cause and
contribution.

Nice dodge.

Just zis Guy said:

At Mon, 11 Jul 2005 13:23:28 -0400, message
<[email hidden]> was posted by Peter Cole
<[email hidden]>, including some, all or none of the
following:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>In my state (MA) bicycles aren't legal vehicles yet. Advocates are
>attempting to rectify this "problem"

^^^^^^^^^

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The quotes are superfluous.

Quoted message said:

The quotes are to indicate the word is not my choice, but the explicit
choice of others.

No, the quotes are there to indicate that you do not believe a lack of
vehicular equivalence is a problem.

Actually, both, but the second meaning is inferred.

Quoted message said:

Peter Cole said:

Yes and no. Practically, what's enforced becomes the working law -- at
least until you get to court.

Or until you try to collect from the insurance company.

Same difference.

Quoted message said:

I understand your excuse, but my point was that _all_ scofflaws have an
excuse. They're satisfied if they convince only themselves, which
counts for very little. Present company _not_ excepted.

OK, but I'm a sincere scofflaw.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Stopping for lights kills my "efficiency".

Oh, please! I've seen plenty of self-important motorists who will do
anything to get home thirty seconds quicker. It's silly. You, like
they, are not going to do anything important with that time. Relax.

Heh, you must not do much urban cycling. Why do you think bike
messengers exist?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Yeah, but even in your world you've got to admit one's a lethal jerk,
the other's a harmless jerk.

Sorry, but I definitely disagree on the "harmless" part.

Haven't hurt anybody yet (including myself). Either I'm unusually lucky
or perhaps you're overstating the risk.

Zoot Katz said:

I'm with Peter on this one though he expresses it more intelligibly
than me. I just say, [censored] all right in their congested dark hearts.

I dunno, that's pretty frickin' pithy.

Benjamin Lewis said:

Quoted message said:

I contend that such stereotypes generally have *some* truth to them,

That's a "personal" definition. I disagree and contend it's not
mainstream. I thought the M-W quote demonstrated that.

The Wogster said:

Peter Cole said:

The law for running red lights with a bicycle is, by definition,
already very different than the law for motor vehicles. The difference
reflects the difference in danger to innocent parties. To that extent,
it's logical and fair.

How is it different, any time you run a red light, I don't care if your
driving a bike, driving a car, motorcycle, bus, truck or train, your
taking a risk, of a collision that could have been easily avoided.
Remember that when YOU run a red light, ALL other parties involved are
innocent parties. The law is the same, and if it isn't it should be the
same......

Basically the penalties are orders of magnitudes different when you
multiply the actual fees time the enforcement factor. The penalties are
generally explicitly specified in the law (at least the maximum), the
enforcement degree is a cultural variable, influenced by a number of
factors.

The idea that the laws should be equal for bikes and M-V's would be
grossly unjust, fortunately this isn't the case anywhere I know of.

In the case of a fatality, a bicyclist *should* get the same penalty for
killing a motorist that a motorist would get for a cyclist. Usually
that's about 100 bucks. Of course there's the emotional suffering, hard
to put a price on that -- OK, maybe 200 bucks.

Mon, 11 Jul 2005 19:23:50 +0100,
<[email hidden]>,

Just zis Guy said:

So you say. Against that we have driver attitude surveys showing that
they characterise cyclists as scofflaws, and repeated crossposted
threads where we are beaten over the head with the illegal behaviour
of cyclists.

Those x-posted diatribes are as bigoted as the opinions expressed by
those surveyed scud jockeys you're citing. They're seeking to blame
others for the damnable conditions they've brought on themselves.They
want to point a finger at somebody else for their own impotence. They
resent us because we've chosen to use a superior vehicle that they're
unable to manage. All the scofflaw cyclists do is rub their disjointed
noses in their own inefficacy. So what if they don't like it. I say,
[censored] on 'em! They're already intolerant of _anything_ being "in their
way".
--
zk

Quoted message said:

Peter Cole said:

Quoted message said:

Hmmm. So are you against things like books, classes, pamplets,
websites etc. that tell people how they're supposed to ride bicycles?

No, not what I said at all. The pontification I object to is that my
behavior harms anyone, it doesn't.

This is interesting, then.

If you had to write a "how to bike" pamplet, say for 14-year-old kids,
what would you say?

"Don't worry about which side of the road to ride on."

"Red lights are really for cars. You'll be more efficient if you
ignore them."

"If you see a stop sign but the coast looks clear, go for it!"

Seriously, many kids don't know what they're supposed to be doing out
there. What would you tell them, in a brief pamplet?

It's not a hypothetical situation. Although I didn't write a pamphlet, I
did teach a 14 year old (now almost 17). I used John Allen's "Street
Smarts" pamphlet (available on-line, also).

I also took him for a number of urban rides, demonstrating how to safely
and efficiently get through dense traffic, etc. I didn't push it, it
takes years to get good at the downtown dance. I did it mostly to
demonstrate the higher levels of assertiveness required.

He knows enough to ride on the right side of the street, but he still
worries about being struck from behind and (I found out recently) has
the bad habit of retreating to sidewalks on some busy streets. He
admitted to one sidewalk collision with a car (in a driveway,
naturally). Time for some refreshers. It's hard to overcome instincts.

I never stop for right turns if I have good sight lines. MA has limited
"right on red" (where not explicitly excluded), I don't see the need for
bikes to stop usually. I'll merge and stop in other instances, but I'll
go after stopping if the coast is clear, use pedestrian signals, etc. At
those times I'm going too slow to hurt a pedestrian -- a crossing
cyclist is always a possibility, I look for that. I'll filter forward in
traffic aggressively either right or left of a stopped line, I see no
reason to get stuck behind a crowd of gridlocked cars. I wouldn't teach
these techniques to a novice cyclist because they involve both skill and
judgment. The novice has a hard enough time discriminating between lane
sharing and taking situations and how to negotiate/merge. The biggest
fault is lack of assertion. For the meek, in busy urban situations,
sometimes the best way is to act like a pedestrian. I don't think it's
necessary to dismount to do this.

I start out teaching the standard vehicular cycling curriculum. I pay
special attention to common motorist failures to yield. I stress road
hazards, bike handling and situational awareness (leading causes of
crashes).

As for stopping at signals, perhaps the sensible policy is, like
helmets, to make it mandatory for minors, optional for adults.

At Mon, 11 Jul 2005 15:33:11 -0400, message
<[email hidden]> was posted by Peter Cole
<[email hidden]>, including some, all or none of the
following:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This goes to the question of whether these behaviors should be illegal.
I don't think they should.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But they /are/ illegal, and as long as they are we should obey the
law. And for what it's worth I'm with Frank: legal vehicular cycling
buys us much-needed legitimacy.

Quoted message said:

And I hope you guys get your just rewards, I'm ambivalent at best. BTW,
who is "us"? I asked Frank but he chose not to answer. Is that just you
and Frank, or do you have a club?

Ambivalent? I'd say you were a good deal more than that. But
whatever.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You keep saying it's absurd, but so far your sole justification seems
to be because lawbreaking is personally convenient to you, so you
choose to discount anything that suggests it might have negative
connotations.

Quoted message said:

That's a leap.

Not as far as I can tell.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I was using the standard English definition: intolerance and
prejudice. There is good documentary evidence that drivers exhibit
both prejudice and intolerance towards cyclists.

Quoted message said:

You claimed it was exaggerated truth, I said it was a lie. That's a
pretty big difference.

So what's your point? That drivers don't show bigotry towards
cyclists? I think the evidence is that they do.

Quoted message said:

if you connect road rage to cyclist behavior, you're an apologist.

In the same way that advising people to lock their doors and windows
is being an apologist for burglary :-)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So you say. Against that we have driver attitude surveys showing that
they characterise cyclists as scofflaws, and repeated crossposted
threads where we are beaten over the head with the illegal behaviour
of cyclists.

Quoted message said:

Our experience differs markedly, neither of us can explain the differences.

Indeed. Interestingly, yours also apparently differs from what the
driver attitude surveys say. I wonder if this is connected with our
different styles of riding?

Quoted message said:

Even if motorists are chronically [censored] at cyclists in your country
because of a few bad apples like me, I'd draw the line at retaliating
with a couple of tons of turbocharged revenge, wouldn't you? Until the
cops get outlaws like me under control shouldn't you be more concerned
with vigilante justice than my nose tweaking?

You are missing the point. No, actually you are inverting it. I say:
sauce for the goose. If we want road users to behave legally, we have
to be prepared to be bound by the same rules. You say: asking for
everyone to obey the rules is unacceptable, the cagers should obey
first. But they say: why should we obey the rules, you don't.

My way offers a resolution, yours (and theirs) does not.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>And I favour a zero tolerance approach to all road traffic laws. See?
>Not so very different after all.
I think that's a very impractical and unbalanced view. It ignores
fundamentals of justice and law enforcement.

No, I think it's supremely practical. If one user group sees they are
being singled out for enforcement they will consider it discriminatory
- you have already said that you feel enforcement against cyclists
falls into this category. The discrimination disappears when all road
users are clearly subject to enforcement activity.

Quoted message said:

Punishment should fit the crime.

Yes.

Quoted message said:

Part of the computation of punishment is the chance of being caught.

A small part.

Quoted message said:

Making that 100% for all crimes isn't
practical, nor does it really accomplish anything.

Logical disconnect. Zero tolerance is not about 100% chance of
getting caught, it's about clarity. It's about saying that the rules
are the rules, and they will be applied without fear or favour. It's
about removing the moral relativism which allows people to pretend
that their behaviour is not dangerous / illegal / antisocial because
someone else is more dangerous / illegal / antisocial.

And by all accounts it seems to work.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The law for running red lights with a bicycle is, by definition, already
very different than the law for motor vehicles. The difference reflects
the difference in danger to innocent parties. To that extent, it's
logical and fair.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Is it? Is it really? Over here it is *the exact same offence*
covered by the same paragraph of the same statute.

Quoted message said:

Yes, but over here it's never enforced and the maximum penalty is $20
which never changes.

Are you certain it's a different law and not just a different penalty?

But then, you have said you have this perverse system which pretends
bicycles are not vehicles, so maybe it is.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I am not an absolutist, I'll cut corners for practical purposes. I'll
pay the fine.

Yup, and that's just what the motorists say.

Quoted message said:

I think that's rational, I think their fine should be orders of
magnitude greater because their liability is. Since that is also true, I
have no quibble. I do think that aggression towards cyclists should be
much more expensive than it currently is. I think cyclists are
overcharged where the laws are actually enforced.

I have no problem with any of that.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The real issue (again)

Quoted message said:

is whether blaming cyclists for motorist behavior is accurate or helpful.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

No, that's a falsely absolutist representation. The question is
actually whether cyclists breaking the law makes motorist behaviour
better, worse, or the same.

Quoted message said:

OK, have it your way, I don't see the difference.

Easy: one interpretation says that without the lawbreaking, drivers
would love cyclists like brothers. That is patently not going to
happen. The other says that drivers will never love us, but at least
we can avoid them being actively [censored].

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I think it's inflammatory, so makes driver behaviour worse.

So, bust the drivers.

Better to control the problem at source, surely.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I am saying: obey the law. You are saying: it is fine for you
to obey the law, but other road users should not have that freedom.
Your position is arbitrary.

Quoted message said:

Not really. Everyone has the option to obey the law or not. It's a
question of cost and benefit. Individual cost should somehow reflect
social cost, that's all. Motorists are getting a bargain for the
privilege of indulging their aggression on defenseless cyclists,
cyclists are slightly overcharged.

That's not what you've been arguing, though. Penalties for drivers
are higher than for cyclists committing the same offences, and rightly
so. But you've been arguing that the rules should not be enforced /at
all/ in the case of cyclists. Or even exist.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

True enough. I have seen the first side put by several people, the
supposed second side comes down to your assertion that agitation to
clamp down on cyclist misbehaviour is led by cyclists - as far as I
can see that claim is baseless.

Quoted message said:

I've only seen it in the greater Boston /Cambridge area, I can't claim
to know the world.

So, what's the cite for this being led by cyclists?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Again with the libel [censored]. That kind of talk paints you as a
loser.

Quoted message said:

Whatever. It's a term with a specific meaning, unlike "loser".

That has a specific meaning, check your dictionary.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Bicycles are vehicles, equivalence exists and is enshrined in law in
most places, US or otherwise. Breaking that equivalence is the very
last thing we need - it would give the body of anti-cyclist idiots (of
whom there are many) the excuse to drive us off the roads.

Quoted message said:

Not likely, stop fear mongering.

Really? Not likely? Well, that's comforting. In Europe in the 1930s
similar arguments were used to require cyclists to use roadside
facilities where they existed, to ban them from the roads where a path
had been provided, to get them out of the way of "proper" vehicles.
Others argued that motor traffic and cycles could never mix, and that
cycles should be excluded form the roads altogether. This at a time
when more journeys (distance and number) were made by bike than by
car.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You /say/ the laws are different, but it looks very much as if they
are not. The penalties are different - rightly so - but the laws are
the same, or substantially so.

Quoted message said:

Penalty is part of the law -- an important part.

Evasion. All thefts are covered by the same law, punishment is
governed by the severity of the theft. Does that mean that the thefts
are different?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Your claim that minor cyclist
infractions engender acts of motorist homicide is far fetched,
unsubstantiated, and fundamentally dishonest.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It might be, if that was my claim. My claim is that your behaviour
adversely affects motorist attitudes towards other cyclists. I think
that claim is well-founded, based on several years of active
participation in Usenet threads where drivers say exactly that, and on
driver surveys which show that driver attitudes to cyclists are
coloured by cyclists' illegal behaviour.

Quoted message said:

OK, so you stop at attitudes? No claim for attitude->behavior link?

You think behaviour is unaffected by attitude? No, the false claim
that you make is to erect the straw man of a causal link between minor
cyclist infractions and vehicular homicide.

Quoted message said:

If you had said that initially you might have saved a lot of time. I
couldn't care less about motorist "attitudes"?

Really? So you would as happily ride around [censored]-off motorists as
around happy ones?

Quoted message said:

Oh, wait, you did mention motorist behavior a couple of times above.
Well, which is it? Peevish motorists or vengeful ones? If vengeful, how
do they mete out their vengeance, with horn or grille?

Horn, grille aggression, cutting me off, whatever. [censored] drivers
are less pleasant to be around than calm ones.

Quoted message said:

Am I responsible for your unpopularity or threat to your life and limb?
Don't be shy, this *is* the pivotal question!

And one which I have answered several times. In as much as you are
reinforcing motorist prejudices and pouring petrol on the flames of
their documented resentment, you are impacting on the safety of other
cyclists. How much? Who knows.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Perhaps you could point out where Forester and others blame cyclists for
motorist aggression? I missed that.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Perhaps you are unable to tell the difference between cause and
contribution.

Quoted message said:

Nice dodge.

No, it's a Volvo.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound