an heretical thought

Discussion in 'Road Cycling' started by Bgaudet0801, Sep 3, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Bgaudet0801

    Bgaudet0801 Guest

    Hey, heresy is nothing new to me.

    Many cyclists adamantly claim their right to the roadways along with autos - myself included. The
    canonical response to the taunt; 'Stay off the road and on a path!' is: 'Non-cyclists make riding
    on MU paths difficult. The speed differential between cyclist and peds, bladers and whatnot,
    increases the danger. And I agree

    Now here's the heretical part: Auto addicts can make the same claim about bikes on roads.

    *ducking*
     
    Tags:


  2. Brunswick_kate

    Brunswick_kate New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2003
    Messages:
    515
    Likes Received:
    0
    What's to duck? There are rules and regulations for each usage area. Here, the Motor Vehicle Act classifies bicycles as vehicles and that they must adhere to the rules of the road.

    When a cyclist opts to use a multi-use path, there are rules there as well. In this jurisdiction, the cyclist is required to yield to pedestrian traffic -- and that's not as nearly difficult as some might think if you use a smidge of common sense and courtesy.

    Those are the rules and who cares if someone "likes" them. If you opt to use the facilities, then you get to play by the rules. Really don't like the rules, don't use the facilities and that doesn't matter what you're driving or not driving.

    A competent cyclist can deal with pedestrians on a multi-use path. Often, it means slowing down to the point where you're better off on the roadway. A competent motorist can deal with a cyclist on the road. It really isn't that difficult a skill to master.

    The biggest problem is incompetent users of any species.
     
  3. Zoot Katz

    Zoot Katz Guest

    Wed, 03 Sep 2003 15:21:18 GMT, <[email protected]>,
    "bgaudet0801" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Auto addicts can make the same claim about bikes on roads.

    Auto addicts will snivel or even become furious about _anything_ being in front of them, not
    just bikes.
    --
    zk
     
  4. Alex Colvin

    Alex Colvin Guest

    > Many cyclists adamantly claim their right to the roadways along with autos - myself included. The
    > canonical response to the taunt; 'Stay off the road and on a path!' is: 'Non-cyclists make riding
    > on MU paths difficult. The speed differential between cyclist and peds, bladers and whatnot,
    > increases the danger. And I agree

    How about "stay off the road and on an interstate" for autos?

    --
    mac the naïf
     
  5. Ron Hardin

    Ron Hardin Guest

    It's not heretical. Bicyclists of the activist sort and their youthful friends are
    self-righteous morons.

    Drivers can be self-righteous morons too.

    There's no contradiction at all.

    Bike paths are mostly constructed by the self-righteous moron lobby however, albeit not at their own
    expense. So you get that rhetoric there almost automatically. The roads for years have been live and
    let live, and will probably continue that way. At least until activists get to them.
    --
    Ron Hardin [email protected]

    On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.
     
  6. Tim Cain

    Tim Cain Guest

    1 "bgaudet0801" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    > Hey, heresy is nothing new to me.
    >
    > Many cyclists adamantly claim their right to the roadways along with
    > autos - myself included. The canonical response to the taunt; 'Stay off
    the
    > road and on a path!' is: 'Non-cyclists make riding on MU paths difficult. The speed differential
    > between cyclist and peds, bladers and whatnot, increases the danger. And I agree
    >

    No, the canonical response is:

    "I have a legal moral and longer established right than you to use the road".

    About all you got right is the 'ducking' bit.

    Tim.

    ---
    Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
    Version: 6.0.514 / Virus Database: 312 - Release Date: 28/08/03
     
  7. Scott Munro

    Scott Munro Guest

    On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 15:21:18 GMT, "bgaudet0801" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >
    > Hey, heresy is nothing new to me.
    >
    > Many cyclists adamantly claim their right to the roadways along with autos - myself included. The
    > canonical response to the taunt; 'Stay off the road and on a path!' is: 'Non-cyclists make riding
    > on MU paths difficult. The speed differential between cyclist and peds, bladers and whatnot,
    > increases the danger. And I agree
    >
    > Now here's the heretical part: Auto addicts can make the same claim about bikes on roads.

    This is true. And just as cyclists should stay off multi-use paths if they are unprepared to deal
    with life's little inconveniences, motorists who are similarly unprepared should stay off the roads.

    >*ducking*
    >
    >
    >

    --
    "Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes--our ancestors. It is the democracy
    of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely
    happen to be walking around."
    -- G.K. Chesterton
     
  8. Tom Keats

    Tom Keats Guest

    In article <[email protected]>, Ron Hardin <[email protected]> writes:
    > It's not heretical. Bicyclists of the activist sort and their youthful friends are
    > self-righteous morons.
    >
    > Drivers can be self-righteous morons too.

    Most of the drivers I encounter are timid, trepidacious scared-y cats who think cyclists ahead of
    them are suddenly going to dart across their paths and cause them (the drivers) to hit someone.

    I frequently find myself having to soothe and allay their fears, by shoulder checking, making eye
    contact with them when they feel as if they're "stuck" behind me, and moving a little curbward when
    I can, to invite them to pass me. I think a fearful driver is more dangerous than an aggressive one.
    I prefer to keep the dangerous drivers up ahead of me, where I can keep an eye on 'em. They want to
    get past me, so they don't have to worry about me. So, I let 'em go, and we're both happily on our
    merry ways.

    We're all human beans, and we can all get along quite nicely if only a little effort is made. I
    guess outlier incidents stick out and attract attention. But I'm often impressed by how well the
    system works, when nothing goes wrong, nobody gets hurt, and ppl get to where they're going without
    incident -- the norm. For a bunch of morons, I think we generally do pretty good. But the outlier
    incidents still indicate room for improvement.

    Two recent incidents poignantly stick in my mind right now. The first one was where an elderly lady
    on crutches was wending her way across the street, and I stopped for her. No big deal. We trade
    smiles. But she said, "Sorry about that." As if she felt she was impinging on me, when she had a
    perfect right to safely cross the street, and I was fully respecting her right.

    "Sorry 'bout that." pfffft. What is the world coming to, when pedestrians feel compelled to
    apologize for crossing the god damned street? A lot of car drivers might've just shot past her,
    given her the scare of a lifetime, never heard her, and then quickly forgotten her. Provided they
    didn't run her over, of course.

    The other incident is a recent, local news item, where an out of control (moron-piloted?) SUV
    crashed into the Queensborough Bridge's sidewalk, and launched a passing-by pedestrian over the
    edge, and down to the Fraser River flats, to his death. That shouldn't have happened. The "moron"
    cycling advocates will see that it doesn't happen again.

    Of course we're all morons. Hell, we allow daytime television to exist. But sometimes we do good,
    too. Maybe there's redemption for us. I hope so. I'd like to find that little ol' lady on crutches
    again, and give her a jar of my excess blackberry jelly. Streets & city traffic have become such
    depersonalized zones. That needs remedying, and I think that would be the first progressive step
    toward fixing transportation issues, so that *people* - not vehicles - are the important thing.
    Whadda moronic concept, eh? Talk about heresy!

    cheers, Tom

    --

    -- On the Internet, nobody knows. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats
    [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca
     
  9. Rick Onanian

    Rick Onanian Guest

    On Wed, 3 Sep 2003 19:41:11 -0700, Tom Keats <[email protected]> wrote:
    > issues, so that *people* - not vehicles - are the important thing. Whadda moronic concept, eh?
    > Talk about heresy!

    That's terrible. It's obvious that the roads were designed for vehicles, not for people; if people
    want a way to get around, they should get vehicles! Otherwise, there should be sidewalks that go up
    to their doors, and designated safe zones to cross the street where vehicles would be required to
    stop if there's a person crossing.

    Oh, wait, that IS the way it's designed. Now if we could only get the people in the vehicles
    (regardless of what powers the vehicles or how many wheels they have) to cooperate...

    We're both morons, Tom.

    <random item that crossed my mind just now> ..."And what do we burn apart from witches?"
    "More witches!"

    ..."And what ELSE floats on water?" "Very small rocks?" </random item that crossed my mind just now>

    > cheers, Tom
    --
    Rick Onanian
     
  10. St Canard

    St Canard Guest

    In article <[email protected]>, Tom Keats wrote:
    > In article <[email protected]>, Ron Hardin <[email protected]> writes:
    >> It's not heretical. Bicyclists of the activist sort and their youthful friends are self-righteous
    >> morons.
    >>
    >> Drivers can be self-righteous morons too.
    >
    > Most of the drivers I encounter are timid, trepidacious scared-y cats who think cyclists ahead of
    > them are suddenly going to dart across their paths and cause them (the drivers) to hit someone.

    I notice that too. Today, coming into work I was stopped at a stoplight. Turning left, so I was on
    the right side of the left turning lane. I noticed a car stopped well back in the right turn lane
    beside me. I checked, there was lots of space, made eye contact with the driver and waved for her to
    come forward to the stop line. The car moved forward about a foot (still > 6 feet behind me) then
    stopped. I beckoned several more times, but couldn't get her to come forward.

    It seemed to me that she was not willing to have a bike on the left side of her. Not knowing what I
    was going to do next...

    --
    "Divide by cucumber error, please reinstall Universe and reboot"

    -- Terry Pratchett, _Hogfather_
     
  11. bgaudet0801 <[email protected]> wrote:

    : road and on a path!' is: 'Non-cyclists make riding on MU paths difficult. The speed differential
    : between cyclist and peds, bladers and whatnot, increases the danger. And I agree

    Is this some American thinking again? Well-behaving pedestrians, bladers etc. are no danger or
    hindrance to the cyclist. Also I notice there's huge speed differences between cyclists.

    What's dangerous on bike paths/tracks is poor visibility.

    --
    Risto Varanka | http://www.helsinki.fi/~rvaranka/hpv/hpv.html varis at no spam please iki fi
     
  12. Pete

    Pete Guest

    <[email protected]> wrote

    >
    > Well-behaving pedestrians, bladers etc.

    Those are unknown species in the US.

    Pete
     
  13. Mark Jones

    Mark Jones Guest

    "Pete" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    >
    > <[email protected]> wrote
    >
    > >
    > > Well-behaving pedestrians, bladers etc.
    >
    > Those are unknown species in the US.
    I sometimes encounter people who are walking in a group big enough to block the path. They aren't
    smart enough to stay on half the width of the path so other people can get by.

    Another problem is other cyclists riding next to each other at very slow speeds. They would never
    block both lanes of a street like this, but yet they do this on their bike. It is almost like they
    disengage their brain when they get on a bicycle.
     
  14. Pete

    Pete Guest

    "Mark Jones" <[email protected]> wrote

    > I sometimes encounter people who are walking in a group big enough to block the path. They aren't
    > smart enough to stay on half the width of the path so other people can get by.

    Guy walking his dog. On one of those retractable leashes.

    Dog sees something interesting on the other side, guy lets the leash out. All the way
    across the trail

    Stupid beast on both ends.

    Pete
     
  15. Mark Jones

    Mark Jones Guest

    "Pete" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:eek:[email protected]...
    >
    > "Mark Jones" <[email protected]> wrote
    >
    > > I sometimes encounter people who are walking in a group big enough to block the path. They
    > > aren't smart enough to stay on half the width of the path so other people can get by.
    >
    > Guy walking his dog. On one of those retractable leashes.
    >
    > Dog sees something interesting on the other side, guy lets the leash out. All the way across
    > the trail
    >
    > Stupid beast on both ends.
    I have had this happen. I announce that I am coming through loud enough that the dog gets yanked
    back pretty hard. When a person walks their dog, they need to be sure to keep the dog out of
    harms way.
     
  16. David Kerber

    David Kerber Guest

    In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
    > Pete <[email protected]> wrote:
    > : Stupid beast on both ends.
    >
    > please. the dog can make a convincing plea for ignorance.

    But that still leaves stupidity on the other end...

    --

    "Where was the ka-boom? There was supposed to be an Earth-shattering ka- boom!"
    - Marvin The Martian
     
  17. H. M. Leary

    H. M. Leary Guest

    In article <[email protected]>, "Pete" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > "Mark Jones" <[email protected]> wrote
    >
    > > I sometimes encounter people who are walking in a group big enough to block the path. They
    > > aren't smart enough to stay on half the width of the path so other people can get by.
    >
    > Guy walking his dog. On one of those retractable leashes.
    >
    > Dog sees something interesting on the other side, guy lets the leash out. All the way across
    > the trail
    >
    > Stupid beast on both ends.
    >
    > Pete
    >
    >

    The dog is not stupid, just instinctive.

    HAND

    --
    ³Freedom Is a Light for Which Many Have Died in Darkness³

    - Tomb of the unknown - American Revolution
     
  18. Rick Onanian

    Rick Onanian Guest

    On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 13:45:41 GMT, H. M. Leary <[email protected]> wrote:
    > The dog is not stupid, just instinctive.

    If it's a dachshund, it's stupid. I know. My gf has two of the damn worthless things.

    Now, a nice husky or shepherd...

    > HAND
    --
    Rick Onanian
     
  19. bgaudet0801 <[email protected]> wrote:
    > Many cyclists adamantly claim their right to the roadways along with autos - myself included. The
    > canonical response to the taunt; 'Stay off the road and on a path!' is: 'Non-cyclists make riding
    > on MU paths difficult. The speed differential between cyclist and peds, bladers and whatnot,
    > increases the danger. And I agree

    > Now here's the heretical part: Auto addicts can make the same claim about bikes on roads.

    When was the last time you heard a cyclist yelling at a pedestrian to "get off the f*cking path"?
    There's a big difference between exercizing your own rights (riding on roads) and fighting the
    rights of others (restricting bikes to bikeways).

    Besides, I'd much rather be a motorist sharing the road with a cyclist, than a cyclist sharing a
    path with a pedestrian. There are specific rules governing how everybody should behave on the
    roadway, so both motorists and cylists are (in theory) predictible. Compared to that, bikeways look
    like a jungle.

    --
    Frederic Briere <*> [email protected]

    => <[email protected]> IS NO MORE: <http://www.abacomsucks.com> <=
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...