Better than bells

Pat in TX said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Sometimes motorists respond very well to a voice-generated imitated car
horn -- much better than the cheery tinkle of a typical bike bell.

I stick to:
"Let's go, man"
"Watch it there, idiot"
"HEY HEY HEY HEYYYYY!!!"

Next time, I'm going to give it the old Ah-OOO-gah car horn and see what
happens!

I prefer a roadrunner "beep beep!"

Pat

Quoted message said:

Bill Sornson said:

Wear what you want.

In the state where you claim to live, over 10 million people cannot
ride a bicycle and "wear what they want". Have you attempted to do
anything about this, or are your words empty?

Oh, the humanity! ROTFL

Claire Petersky said:

I yell warnings, exhortations and praise.

Warnings are usually short, to get the motorist to look, and usually to get
the motorist to either stop or stay stopped. Simply "Bicycle!" is the most
common. "See me?!" or "Look!" is another one I use a fair bit. "Stay there!"
if they've already stopped. I also yell "Turning!" when coming down Madison
and then turning right, because I don't dare take my hands of the brakes for
a second because the hill is so steep.

Exhorations are to get them to move along:
At the green light: "All right! It's green!" If that fails to move them
along, I add, "Green means 'Go!'"
When the car in front of me needs to roll a bit so I can maintain momentum
without unclipping: "Keep on rolling, Toyota, thatta boy, keep on rolling"
When overly polite Seattle drivers are frozen into immobility at the sight
of a cyclist: "You have the right of way! Go!"

Praise is for doing the right thing. Usually it's just "good job!", although
sometimes I'll say, "good little car", too, if I'm feeling snide. "You got
it!" is for cars that passed me successfully, especially if they appeared
scared or hesitant to do so at first. A "there you go" is also for cars
doing the right thing.

How much of this cacophony is audible to the motorist? I admit, I
mutter things like "Good cager! Turn that light!" but I mutter them
under my breath. Ditto the "Jerk!" and "Hey idiot, learn the law before
you try to teach it." that "get on the sidewalk" gets out of me. But
the only thing most cagers hear from me is, "Hey!" or "Look out!"

Quoted message said:

Putting it all together: On the way to work, I need to stop people coming
from the Richard's Road off-ramp from whipping around the corner, illegally
taking a free right to the mall without stopping at the red. I've learned I
have to be smack dab in the lane (not Crosswalk of Death) so they'll notice
me at all, as they are still in Freeway Brain. I yell, in succession:
"BICYCLE! See me? STAY THERE. ...Good job!"

Last resort: Shriek of anticipated imminent pain. This happens
involuntarily, so it isn't like I plan to use it. It just sort of escapes.
It's when I'm convinced that something really awful is seconds away from
happening. Usually this blood-curdling cry is enough to stop a motorist in
his or her tracks.

aeiouy said:

I've used the dog barking technique with good results. There are some bike
paths around here with lots of feral cats that people feed. After having
hit two cats, the second time the cat hit me. It ran into my back tire
after my front tire had passed it. Now as soon as I start down that stretch
of path I start barking loud and continuously until I've cleared the area.
Works every time.

LOL. Do the neighbors recognize you by now? "Hey, Ralph, here comes
that loony biker that thinks he's a dog!"

Pat

Quoted message said:

Bill Sornson said:

Wear what you want.

In the state where you claim to live, over 10 million people cannot
ride a bicycle and "wear what they want".

Facts omitted by "jtaylor", who loves to prattle on about facts:

A) The California law only applies to children

B) Apparently, enforcement is so non-existant that many California
cyclists are unaware that the law even exists.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Bill Sornson said:

Wear what you want.

In the state where you claim to live, over 10 million people cannot
ride a bicycle and "wear what they want".

Facts omitted by "jtaylor", who loves to prattle on about facts:

A) The California law only applies to children

So far. California enacted the very first MHL ever, continues to
expand the people and circumstances where wearing one is mandatory,
and now requires a greater number of its residents to wear helmets
while cycling than any other state in the US.

Quoted message said:

B) Apparently, enforcement is so non-existant that many California
cyclists are unaware that the law even exists.

So far. If people who claim to be anti-MHL do nothing, they cannot
complain when they find themselves forced to wear a foam hat. What
have you done about MHL's? Anything?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 13:48:37 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]> wrote:

>
>Wear what you want.
>

In the state where you claim to live, over 10 million people cannot
ride a bicycle and "wear what they want".

Facts omitted by "jtaylor", who loves to prattle on about facts:

A) The California law only applies to children

So far. California enacted the very first MHL ever, continues to
expand the people and circumstances where wearing one is mandatory,
and now requires a greater number of its residents to wear helmets
while cycling than any other state in the US.

Quoted message said:

B) Apparently, enforcement is so non-existant that many California
cyclists are unaware that the law even exists.

So far. If people who claim to be anti-MHL do nothing, they cannot
complain when they find themselves forced to wear a foam hat.

How ever are they going to "force" you to wear a helmet? Do you really
think that the state and local police, underfunded and undermanned as
they are, are going to start pulling cyclists over with their squad
cars? Do you think the taxpayers will endure a tax increase to fund
enforcement of such a silly and obscure law? Are you serious?

Quoted message said:

What
have you done about MHL's? Anything?

When there is an *adult* MHL proposed in an area where I have a vote, I
will oppose it. In the meantime, I leave the tilting at windmills to
you, Don Flailote.

"Pat Lamb" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Claire Petersky said:

I yell warnings, exhortations and praise.

Quoted message said:

How much of this cacophony is audible to the motorist?

Oh, probably not much. I do have a voice that cuts through ambient noise
like a hot awl through oleo, but once we're out of summer and everyone has
the windows rolled up, I doubt they hear much of anything. Instead, all my
verbal instruction and cajoling is to make me feel more in control in
traffic. And I do believe that if I ride like I'm in command of the road, I
get more respect from motorists. As a result, they end up obeying most of my
orders, whether they can hear them or not.

--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
http://www.bicyclemeditations.org/
See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky

Quoted message said:

How ever are they going to "force" you to wear a helmet? Do you really
think that the state and local police, underfunded and undermanned as
they are, are going to start pulling cyclists over with their squad
cars? Do you think the taxpayers will endure a tax increase to fund
enforcement of such a silly and obscure law? Are you serious?

The problem is that a MHL can be selectively enforced and used as tool
to harrass otherwise law abiding cyclists if an ignorant officer
decides he doesn't "approve" of something the cyclist is doing such as
taking the lane to defend against an aggressive cager or setting up for
a left turn.

I am not anti-helmet in any way but I am opposed to any MHL for adults
because it will be used to unfairly disenfranchise cyclists.

amakyonin said:

Quoted message said:

How ever are they going to "force" you to wear a helmet? Do you really
think that the state and local police, underfunded and undermanned as
they are, are going to start pulling cyclists over with their squad
cars? Do you think the taxpayers will endure a tax increase to fund
enforcement of such a silly and obscure law? Are you serious?

The problem is that a MHL can be selectively enforced and used as tool
to harrass otherwise law abiding cyclists if an ignorant officer
decides he doesn't "approve" of something the cyclist is doing such as
taking the lane to defend against an aggressive cager or setting up for
a left turn.

That's a possible scenario, but IMO, an unlikely one. IME, if "an
ignorant officer" thinks a cyclist is violating a traffic law (whether
they are or not is beside the point), they will stop and cite the
cyclist for that violation, or at least for a lecture. IOW, if the
officer believes he is "right", why would he need a pretext to stop the
cyclist?

And I really don't see the police stopping cyclists for violation of a
hypothetical MHL when many departments are too undermanned to pick up
people with open arrest warrants. YMMV.

Quoted message said:

I am not anti-helmet in any way but I am opposed to any MHL for adults

We agree here.

Quoted message said:

because it will be used to unfairly disenfranchise cyclists.

IMO, that's a leap.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 13:48:37 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
>> Wear what you want.
>>
>
> In the state where you claim to live, over 10 million people cannot
> ride a bicycle and "wear what they want".
Facts omitted by "jtaylor", who loves to prattle on about facts:

A) The California law only applies to children

So far. California enacted the very first MHL ever, continues to
expand the people and circumstances where wearing one is mandatory,
and now requires a greater number of its residents to wear helmets
while cycling than any other state in the US.

Quoted message said:

B) Apparently, enforcement is so non-existant that many California
cyclists are unaware that the law even exists.

So far. If people who claim to be anti-MHL do nothing, they cannot
complain when they find themselves forced to wear a foam hat.

How ever are they going to "force" you to wear a helmet? Do you really
think that the state and local police, underfunded and undermanned as
they are, are going to start pulling cyclists over with their squad
cars? Do you think the taxpayers will endure a tax increase to fund
enforcement of such a silly and obscure law? Are you serious?

So what are they going to do to me, take away my bicycle license? If I'm
riding a junker they can impound it and I'll just get another. If they
try to fine me I won't pay it, and will sit in jail for a few days, at
their expense and a few of my vacation days, or do a few weekends. I'll
bet they wouldn't keep giving me tickets if they knew I was going to
COST THEM money!!!!
Unfortunately I could not take that approach with the motorcycle helmet
laws since they could take my motorcycle license or apply points to my
car license. That took all the fun out of motorcycle riding for me.
Bill Baka

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What
have you done about MHL's? Anything?

When there is an *adult* MHL proposed in an area where I have a vote, I
will oppose it. In the meantime, I leave the tilting at windmills to
you, Don Flailote.

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

Quoted message said:

And I really don't see the police stopping cyclists for violation of a
hypothetical MHL when many departments are too undermanned to pick up
people with open arrest warrants. YMMV.

Try it. Next time you are in a place with an MHL ride by cops without
a helmet.

I see it all the time. There is a child MHL here, few children wear
helmets and I see local police pass by the kids all the time.

Interestingly, adult helmet use, sans an MHL, is very high in this
area.

On 6 Sep 2006 12:18:50 -0700, "amakyonin" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

How ever are they going to "force" you to wear a helmet? Do you really
think that the state and local police, underfunded and undermanned as
they are, are going to start pulling cyclists over with their squad
cars? Do you think the taxpayers will endure a tax increase to fund
enforcement of such a silly and obscure law? Are you serious?

The problem is that a MHL can be selectively enforced and used as tool
to harrass otherwise law abiding cyclists if an ignorant officer
decides he doesn't "approve" of something the cyclist is doing such as
taking the lane to defend against an aggressive cager or setting up for
a left turn.

I am not anti-helmet in any way but I am opposed to any MHL for adults
because it will be used to unfairly disenfranchise cyclists.

Well said.

It's bizarre that Ozark, who claims to care about rights, denounce
concerns over laws by claiming they won't be enforced so they're no
big deal.

Also in response to Ozark, my best friend was stopped by a cop for
riding w/o a helmet within the last two months. Police enforce all
sorts of things that probably shouldn't be priorities.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

On 6 Sep 2006 12:18:50 -0700, "amakyonin" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

How ever are they going to "force" you to wear a helmet? Do you really
think that the state and local police, underfunded and undermanned as
they are, are going to start pulling cyclists over with their squad
cars? Do you think the taxpayers will endure a tax increase to fund
enforcement of such a silly and obscure law? Are you serious?

The problem is that a MHL can be selectively enforced and used as tool
to harrass otherwise law abiding cyclists if an ignorant officer
decides he doesn't "approve" of something the cyclist is doing such as
taking the lane to defend against an aggressive cager or setting up for
a left turn.

I am not anti-helmet in any way but I am opposed to any MHL for adults
because it will be used to unfairly disenfranchise cyclists.

Well said.

It's bizarre that Ozark, who claims to care about rights, denounce
concerns over laws by claiming they won't be enforced so they're no
big deal.

Also in response to Ozark, my best friend was stopped by a cop for
riding w/o a helmet within the last two months. Police enforce all
sorts of things that probably shouldn't be priorities.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Quoted message said:

And I really don't see the police stopping cyclists for violation of a
hypothetical MHL when many departments are too undermanned to pick up
people with open arrest warrants. YMMV.

Try it. Next time you are in a place with an MHL ride by cops without
a helmet.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Quoted message said:

And I really don't see the police stopping cyclists for violation of a
hypothetical MHL when many departments are too undermanned to pick up
people with open arrest warrants. YMMV.

Try it. Next time you are in a place with an MHL ride by cops without
a helmet.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

On 6 Sep 2006 12:18:50 -0700, "amakyonin" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

How ever are they going to "force" you to wear a helmet? Do you really
think that the state and local police, underfunded and undermanned as
they are, are going to start pulling cyclists over with their squad
cars? Do you think the taxpayers will endure a tax increase to fund
enforcement of such a silly and obscure law? Are you serious?

The problem is that a MHL can be selectively enforced and used as tool
to harrass otherwise law abiding cyclists if an ignorant officer
decides he doesn't "approve" of something the cyclist is doing such as
taking the lane to defend against an aggressive cager or setting up for
a left turn.

I am not anti-helmet in any way but I am opposed to any MHL for adults
because it will be used to unfairly disenfranchise cyclists.

Well said.

It's bizarre that Ozark, who claims to care about rights, denounce
concerns over laws by claiming they won't be enforced so they're no
big deal.

I'm not "denouncing concerns", I'm pointing out the foolishness of
jtaylor's paranoid rantings re: being "forced" to wear helmets. In the
big picture, I don't see overworked, underfunded local police
departments stopping and citing cyclists regarding helmets whilst not
having the wherewithal to pick up people with open arrest warrants.
YMMV, and so be it.

Quoted message said:

Also in response to Ozark, my best friend was stopped by a cop for
riding w/o a helmet within the last two months. Police enforce all
sorts of things that probably shouldn't be priorities.

Did they put the cuffs on him? Throw him in the slammer? Make him post
bond? Bind him over for a hearing? Are they going to revoke his bicycle
license? Or did they just write a ticket and send him on his way? Or
did he just get a little lecture?

Quoted message said:

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:

Quoted message said:

Did they put the cuffs on him? Throw him in the slammer? Make him post
bond? Bind him over for a hearing? Are they going to revoke his bicycle
license? Or did they just write a ticket and send him on his way? Or
did he just get a little lecture?

The latter two I think.

You think that's not important? Not a big deal? Lame.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

A) The California law only applies to children

10 million of them. So far.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So far. California enacted the very first MHL ever, continues to
expand the people and circumstances where wearing one is mandatory,
and now requires a greater number of its residents to wear helmets
while cycling than any other state in the US.

Quoted message said:

B) Apparently, enforcement is so non-existant that many California
cyclists are unaware that the law even exists.

So far. If people who claim to be anti-MHL do nothing, they cannot
complain when they find themselves forced to wear a foam hat.

How ever are they going to "force" you to wear a helmet? Do you really
think that the state and local police, underfunded and undermanned as
they are, are going to start pulling cyclists over with their squad
cars? Do you think the taxpayers will endure a tax increase to fund
enforcement of such a silly and obscure law? Are you serious?

Quoted message said:

What
have you done about MHL's? Anything?

When there is an *adult* MHL proposed in an area where I have a vote, I
will oppose it.

So, MHL's are ok with you as long as they don't apply to you?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I am not anti-helmet in any way but I am opposed to any MHL for adults

We agree here.

Does this mean that you ARE in favour of an MHL for some people, but
not for others?