Braking the Fixie

[velodancer]

On Jul 21, 3:19 pm, Bill Shatzer <[email protected]> wrote:

> If they had coaster brakes, they'd have no problem with the law.

Interestingly, as the Oregon law was quoted earlier, a front wheel
only brake would still be in violation of the law as the law states
the brake must be able to skid the wheel on dry pavement.

> In point of fact, front and rear caliper brakes can stop a bicycle in
> about 2/3rds the distance that a similar bicycle equipped only with a
> rear coaster brake can stop.

The rear brake is irrelevant in panic stops. Where did you get this
2/3rds distance from, tandems?

> In fact, about 70% of the stopping power is provided by the front brake.

Again, where did you get this figure from? When I maximally brake a
well set up bike with my weight on the saddle (not off the rear) , my
rear wheel lifts from the ground. 0% rear stopping force.

 

[bryanska]

> A large group of bicycles traveling together in a body impedes
> traffic much less than several smaller groups or individuals doing
> the whole light sequence thing. If there are already bikes in the
> intersection ahead of you and there are bikes coming up from behind -
>
> KEEP MOVING!
> --
> zk

That will impede the hell out of things when people decide to make
their own rules, and ignore the "whole light sequence thing".

Not to mention perpetuating the stereotype.

Besides, who breaks the cycle in a line of 3000 to 5000 charity
riders? And we wonder when governments pass weird bike legislation.

 

[Michael Press]

In article
<[email protected]>,
Spread Eagle® <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Jul 21, 8:16 am, [email protected] (Paul J. Berg) wrote:
>
> > "A large number of people don't understand how many fixies there are and
> > how safe they are," says Atkinson, the original sponsor of the bill.
>
>
> Those of us who learned to ride in the 50s know that pedal brakes are
> far better than those flimsy caliper things controlled on the
> handlebar. Pedal brakes can flat-out shut down the real wheel, so
> much so that you can easily skid and leave rubber on the road if
> that's something you want to do. Try that with calipers. As if.
> Calipers don't have anything like that kind of stopping power.
>
> Plus the front wheel caliper brake is dangerous. Imedes steering
> control AND can throw you head over heels.

So you rode a bicycle in the 50's and this is the best you can do?
You area weak troller or this shapes up to be the Marianas Turkey Shoot.

--
Michael Press

 

[Michael Press]

In article <Xkxoi.136467$1i1.56571@pd7urf3no>,
"Dave Mayer" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "_" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 17:00:40 GMT, Dave Mayer wrote:
> >
> >> The downside for me is that I had bought a heavily discounted track frame
> >> a
> >> while back with the intention of building up into a single-speed bike -
> >> yes,
> >> with two good hand brakes and a freehub. Now I have to sit on this
> >> project
> >> perhaps for several years until this fad withers.
> >
> > Why?
> >
> > You will not get a ticket.
>
> Why wait on this project? Well, I have too many bikes.

Oh, really!

> But the main reason
> to delay: because single-speed bikes are a hot 'thing'. But when I
> eventually do build it up it may have some applications due to its
> simplicity and light weight.
>
> However, the fixed gear 'thing' is both trendy and outright stupid. Riding
> a bike with no brakes (off track) is plain suicidal. And removing the
> ability to freewheel kills one of the key pleasures in riding a bike:
> coasting.

Flip-flop hub and brakes. Problem solved.

--
Michael Press

 

[Michael Press]

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

> Peter Cole writes:
>
> >> However, the fixed gear 'thing' is both trendy and outright stupid.
> >> Riding a bike with no brakes (off track) is plain suicidal. And
> >> removing the ability to freewheel kills one of the key pleasures in
> >> riding a bike: coasting.
>
> > So it would seem, but there are a lot of us who greatly prefer fixed
> > to single speed, trends or no.
>
> I still think you should define "hip". I think that's what it's all
> about.

I am hip, and so are some other people.

--
Michael Press

 

[Michael Press]

In article <[email protected]>,
John Thompson <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 2007-07-21, Zoot Katz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 16:56:49 -0400, Peter Cole
> ><[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>The thing I have never been able to understand about the brake-less
> >>crowd is how they keep their tire from wearing out, given the skid
> >>stopping they favor.
>
> > They calculate the number of skid patches they get with various gear
> > combinations and can sometimes increase that number by moving the
> > tire on the rim. That and carry duct tape.
>
> Use a prime number tooth count on both chainring and cog and you'll
> spread the wear evenly enough without having to reposition the chain.
>

Not prime, relatively prime.

--
Michael Press

 

[Peter Cole]

[email protected] wrote:
> Peter Cole writes:

>> I like to think I'm hip, doesn't everybody?
>
> I prefer to see a definition of "hip" before believing that. I sense
> that it often goes with driving a jacked up shiny black SUV with 18"
> chromed wheels with 12" wide low cross section tires, blackened
> windows and 4" dual rumble pipes to go with the tish-boom stereo that
> shakes most structures (and cars) near the road.
>
> I don't want to spend time with shallow people who believe they are
> what they own (or are in debt for), especially if it is in such bad
> taste. Do you drive truck! If you don't, you ain't nowhere.

I think it's a good idea to define "hip".

1 a : having or showing awareness of or involvement in the newest
developments or styles <hip musicians> b : very fashionable : TRENDY
<hip clothes>
2 : aware or appreciative of something -- used with to <got hip to their
plan>

I think part of the problem come from the two, somewhat opposite,
connotations. Personally, I use it in the second sense, knowledgeable,
rather than fashionable. Again, personally, if your idea of style is
functional (true of many engineers), as in "form follows function", then
the two meanings of the word converge.

I'm a dyed in the wool functionalist, so when it comes to cycling, my
idea of a "hip" cyclist is someone whose understanding of function is
obvious from their choice of clothing, equipment, demeanor and behavior
on a bike -- at least obvious to me. Any alignment with trends is pretty
much coincidental. As Coco Chanel said" "Never confuse fad with
fashion". Most people equate those two terms, but she had a very
different idea.

As for monster trucks, since they are among the most un-functional
things on the road, I consider them very un-hip. Ditto for loud pipes,
massive subwoofers, black windows, low wall tires on massive rims and
all those other non-functional (or even dis-functional) affectations you
see on everything from the above trucks to little sport coupes.

Unfortunately, many of these new fads, are discourteous in the most
general sense, as are also incessant headphone and cellphone use. I
don't think it's too far a reach to suggest they represent a growing
level of disregard for others. The knowledge that courtesy is a
necessary social lubricant has been recognized for millennia, so these
developments are very un-hip by my meaning of the word.

 

[Peter Cole]

[email protected] wrote:
> Peter Cole writes:
>
>>> My current pet peeve is being "waved through" an intersection, on a
>>> bike or in a car, when I obviously do NOT have the right of way.
>>> I've actually unclipped and dismounted after five long seconds of
>>> red-faced frenetic waving on their part. I don't need the damn
>>> "favor". It just confuses people. Some people get enormous,
>>> throbbing erections from randomly directing traffic this way.
>
>> They're just trying to be nice, Mr. Grumpypuss.
>
> I think you got that wrong. It's a subtle way of saying "You're a
> stupid bicyclist, dangerous at any speed. Go ahead, get out of here
> and out of my way, even if you don't have the right-of-way."
>
> It's like the guys who won't pass on a slightly curvy mountain road
> even on straight sections, on a road that has reasonable shoulders
> beyond the lane edge stripe. Even though bicycling on the shoulder,
> they won't pass until someone in the car complains, and then make a
> pass, regardless of visibility, going to the opposite shoulder to
> emphasize what a hazard the bicyclist is. I have witnessed some near
> head-on collisions with this routine. Of course it was the bicyclists
> fault when you hear the incident recounted by such "bike watchers".

I think there are at least two categories here: Those you describe, who
see cyclists as a road hazard, and a second group of "overly polite"
drivers. It can be hard to distinguish between the two, while their
behavior may be nearly identical in some circumstances. Of course the
behavior of both groups is based on ignorance rather than hostility. Not
knowing what their attitudes are, my tendency is to grant the benefit of
the doubt. There's no way I can correct their ignorance.

I once was horseback riding with a group when we came upon a group of
young scout hikers. They froze and stood like statues. The horses became
anxious and a couple of them bolted. The scouts were obviously just
(over)doing what they had been told. It was hard to get angry with them.

 

[Peter Cole]

landotter wrote:

>
> Actually, in a lot of circles, the new hip is vastly different.


> Nothing wrong with style, nothing wrong with laughter, just don't
> shuffle your shoes and sulk too much.
>

I think there's always a new hip, but it's always the same when it comes
to style -- that is, based on the same principles (like Coco Chanel said).

It's always stimulating to see someone solve the same problems in a new
and original way. There's a huge difference in self-conscious copycats
and those with true elan. The latter are inspiring, the former,
depressing. It can't be faked.

When I spend any time around fashionistas (AKA trendy consumers),
whether they be motorists or cyclists, I just come away depressed. I
don't think it's a matter of difference in taste, these people are
depressing in an absolute sense. My guess is they depress each other, too.

 

[Peter Cole]

Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> Tim McNamara wrote:

>>>> Would you do the same thing if you were on a bike?
>>> Yes, and I've caused an idiot to lose some skin when he wrecked in a
>>> panic. I rolled up to the stop sign at 5mph, saw a guy not even
>>> thinking about braking flying perpendicular to me, so I took my
>>> right of way while yelling "YO!" He lost control and fell. Tough
>>> ****. He could have modulated his speed and ceded to my right of way,
>>> but he decided to take a stupid risk. No sympathy here.
>>
>> Or maybe you're just a self-righteous ass.
>
> People that run stop signs when there is other traffic around that has
> the right-of-way are self-righteous asses.

Not to be pompous, but the life's lesson I've learned (repeatedly) is
that nothing will get you into trouble like self-righteousness. The
most deadly part of it is you don't notice it, like carbon monoxide.
Escalation is inevitable as both sides succumb to the same disease. We
never perfectly *** for every tat, even if we did, it still wouldn't be
perceived that way -- "eye for an eye" -- good in theory, bad in practice.

 

[Helmut Springer]

velodancer <[email protected]> wrote:
> The rear brake is irrelevant in panic stops.

Depends on the ground, it's not always dry asphalt.


--
MfG/Best regards
helmut springer

 

[Nate Nagel]

Spread Eagle® wrote:
> On Jul 21, 8:16 am, [email protected] (Paul J. Berg) wrote:
>
>
>>"A large number of people don't understand how many fixies there are and
>>how safe they are," says Atkinson, the original sponsor of the bill.
>
>
>
> Those of us who learned to ride in the 50s know that pedal brakes are
> far better than those flimsy caliper things controlled on the
> handlebar. Pedal brakes can flat-out shut down the real wheel, so
> much so that you can easily skid and leave rubber on the road if
> that's something you want to do. Try that with calipers. As if.
> Calipers don't have anything like that kind of stopping power.
>
> Plus the front wheel caliper brake is dangerous. Imedes steering
> control AND can throw you head over heels.
>

I think he was referring to a real fixed gear, not a single speed with a
coaster brake.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

 

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

Helmut Springer wrote:
> velodancer <[email protected]> wrote:
>> The rear brake is irrelevant in panic stops.
>
> Depends on the ground, it's not always dry asphalt.

The human powered vehicle that I have that is best as stopping
(deceleration and control) lacks a rear brake.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

[Nate Nagel]

Peter Cole wrote:
> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>
>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>
>
>>>>> Would you do the same thing if you were on a bike?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, and I've caused an idiot to lose some skin when he wrecked in a
>>>> panic. I rolled up to the stop sign at 5mph, saw a guy not even
>>>> thinking about braking flying perpendicular to me, so I took my
>>>> right of way while yelling "YO!" He lost control and fell. Tough
>>>> ****. He could have modulated his speed and ceded to my right of
>>>> way, but he decided to take a stupid risk. No sympathy here.
>>>
>>>
>>> Or maybe you're just a self-righteous ass.
>>
>>
>> People that run stop signs when there is other traffic around that has
>> the right-of-way are self-righteous asses.
>
>
> Not to be pompous, but the life's lesson I've learned (repeatedly) is
> that nothing will get you into trouble like self-righteousness. The
> most deadly part of it is you don't notice it, like carbon monoxide.
> Escalation is inevitable as both sides succumb to the same disease. We
> never perfectly *** for every tat, even if we did, it still wouldn't be
> perceived that way -- "eye for an eye" -- good in theory, bad in practice.

I can't tell if you're agreeing with Tom or arguing with him, but based
on your views expressed on "that other newsgroup" I'm guessing you're
arguing with him. I honestly can't fathom why, ROW laws are in place
for a reason. Blowing stop signs in front of vehicular traffic is
exactly as stupid as riding a brakeless bike in traffic - sure you might
be able to get away with it for a while but it's still stupid and dangerous.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

 

[BobT]

"landotter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Considering the thoughtfulness and luxe quality of most of that bike,
> you've seriously underbelled yourself. Even a single clapper stem
> mounted Japanese model would be a step up. It's like you've left the
> plastic studs in the tuxedo shirt.
>
Are these your plastic studs?

http://tinyurl.com/2aqe6x

BobT

 

[Peter Cole]

Nate Nagel wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:
>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>
>>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>> Would you do the same thing if you were on a bike?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, and I've caused an idiot to lose some skin when he wrecked in
>>>>> a panic. I rolled up to the stop sign at 5mph, saw a guy not even
>>>>> thinking about braking flying perpendicular to me, so I took my
>>>>> right of way while yelling "YO!" He lost control and fell. Tough
>>>>> ****. He could have modulated his speed and ceded to my right of
>>>>> way, but he decided to take a stupid risk. No sympathy here.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Or maybe you're just a self-righteous ass.
>>>
>>>
>>> People that run stop signs when there is other traffic around that
>>> has the right-of-way are self-righteous asses.
>>
>>
>> Not to be pompous, but the life's lesson I've learned (repeatedly) is
>> that nothing will get you into trouble like self-righteousness. The
>> most deadly part of it is you don't notice it, like carbon monoxide.
>> Escalation is inevitable as both sides succumb to the same disease. We
>> never perfectly *** for every tat, even if we did, it still wouldn't
>> be perceived that way -- "eye for an eye" -- good in theory, bad in
>> practice.
>
> I can't tell if you're agreeing with Tom or arguing with him, but based
> on your views expressed on "that other newsgroup" I'm guessing you're
> arguing with him. I honestly can't fathom why, ROW laws are in place
> for a reason. Blowing stop signs in front of vehicular traffic is
> exactly as stupid as riding a brakeless bike in traffic - sure you might
> be able to get away with it for a while but it's still stupid and
> dangerous.

Sorry, I'll clarify.

I don't think playing chicken is a good idea, even if the law, strictly
speaking, is on your side. People may resent having to yield to unlawful
behavior, but it happens all the time (both ways in car bike
interactions). The stakes in personal injury are too high to be petty
about it, and aggression begets aggression.

On a philosophical level, I don't believe that identical ROW rules for
cars and bikes make sense. I also realize those views are far from
universally held. I also don't think that fines, for whatever ROW rules
are on the books, should be identical. Ditto, for those views.

I have tried to explain my beliefs based on what I perceive as the
realities of car/bike road sharing and the relative degrees of
convenience, safety and liability, attempting to separate those issues
where possible.

Like many others, I consider bicycling, from a legal point of view, to
be more related to pure right of way principles than merely the
operation of another type of vehicle, so I tend to see these
disagreements as more meaningful than simple safety and courtesy
squabbles. Again, I realize these views are not universal, but they are
sincere.

Philosophy aside, there are two attitudes that I will always be opposed
to: deliberately endangering another, even if "the law is on your side"
and blaming motorist aggression on the behavior of other cyclists.

 

[landotter]

On Jul 22, 7:55 am, "BobT" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> "landotter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...> Considering the thoughtfulness and luxe quality of most of that bike,
> > you've seriously underbelled yourself. Even a single clapper stem
> > mounted Japanese model would be a step up. It's like you've left the
> > plastic studs in the tuxedo shirt.
>
> Are these your plastic studs?
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2aqe6x

Cheeky. It's to be replaced. Mind, that's no tuxedo, it's more of a
Dickies coverall bike. Your rear hub costs vastly more than that
entire bike. Still, it's my favorite ride since my -90 Trek 1200.

The other daily rider indeed has a large red anodized brrrnnng
brrrrinnnng bell.

 

[Nate Nagel]

Peter Cole wrote:
> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>
>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>> Would you do the same thing if you were on a bike?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, and I've caused an idiot to lose some skin when he wrecked in
>>>>>> a panic. I rolled up to the stop sign at 5mph, saw a guy not even
>>>>>> thinking about braking flying perpendicular to me, so I took my
>>>>>> right of way while yelling "YO!" He lost control and fell. Tough
>>>>>> ****. He could have modulated his speed and ceded to my right of
>>>>>> way, but he decided to take a stupid risk. No sympathy here.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Or maybe you're just a self-righteous ass.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> People that run stop signs when there is other traffic around that
>>>> has the right-of-way are self-righteous asses.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Not to be pompous, but the life's lesson I've learned (repeatedly) is
>>> that nothing will get you into trouble like self-righteousness. The
>>> most deadly part of it is you don't notice it, like carbon monoxide.
>>> Escalation is inevitable as both sides succumb to the same disease.
>>> We never perfectly *** for every tat, even if we did, it still
>>> wouldn't be perceived that way -- "eye for an eye" -- good in theory,
>>> bad in practice.
>>
>>
>> I can't tell if you're agreeing with Tom or arguing with him, but
>> based on your views expressed on "that other newsgroup" I'm guessing
>> you're arguing with him. I honestly can't fathom why, ROW laws are in
>> place for a reason. Blowing stop signs in front of vehicular traffic
>> is exactly as stupid as riding a brakeless bike in traffic - sure you
>> might be able to get away with it for a while but it's still stupid
>> and dangerous.
>
>
> Sorry, I'll clarify.
>
> I don't think playing chicken is a good idea, even if the law, strictly
> speaking, is on your side. People may resent having to yield to unlawful
> behavior, but it happens all the time (both ways in car bike
> interactions). The stakes in personal injury are too high to be petty
> about it, and aggression begets aggression.

certainly, I agree.

>
> On a philosophical level, I don't believe that identical ROW rules for
> cars and bikes make sense. I also realize those views are far from
> universally held. I also don't think that fines, for whatever ROW rules
> are on the books, should be identical. Ditto, for those views.
>

There, I disagree. However, if you feel that way, move to have the laws
changed so that everyone knows what's going on. Having common practice
and the law at odds with each other only causes more problems, such as
if an incident occurs and someone is left with the task of sorting out
who is liable. The same kind of thing has already happened with
automobile speed limits; I certainly wouldn't want the same thing to
happen with other laws as well.

> I have tried to explain my beliefs based on what I perceive as the
> realities of car/bike road sharing and the relative degrees of
> convenience, safety and liability, attempting to separate those issues
> where possible.
>
> Like many others, I consider bicycling, from a legal point of view, to
> be more related to pure right of way principles than merely the
> operation of another type of vehicle, so I tend to see these
> disagreements as more meaningful than simple safety and courtesy
> squabbles. Again, I realize these views are not universal, but they are
> sincere.
>
> Philosophy aside, there are two attitudes that I will always be opposed
> to: deliberately endangering another, even if "the law is on your side"
> and blaming motorist aggression on the behavior of other cyclists.


When I'm driving, I expect any cyclist I encounter to behave in a
semi-predictable yet illegal manner; i.e. blowing stop signs, cutting in
front of vehicle traffic, etc. Surely you can't blame these
expectations and the resultant irritation on *motorists.*

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

 

[Joel]

"Peter Cole" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Nate Nagel wrote:
> > Peter Cole wrote:
> >> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> >>
> >>> Tim McNamara wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>> Would you do the same thing if you were on a bike?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yes, and I've caused an idiot to lose some skin when he wrecked in
> >>>>> a panic. I rolled up to the stop sign at 5mph, saw a guy not even
> >>>>> thinking about braking flying perpendicular to me, so I took my
> >>>>> right of way while yelling "YO!" He lost control and fell. Tough
> >>>>> ****. He could have modulated his speed and ceded to my right of
> >>>>> way, but he decided to take a stupid risk. No sympathy here.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Or maybe you're just a self-righteous ass.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> People that run stop signs when there is other traffic around that
> >>> has the right-of-way are self-righteous asses.
> >>
> >>
> >> Not to be pompous, but the life's lesson I've learned (repeatedly) is
> >> that nothing will get you into trouble like self-righteousness. The
> >> most deadly part of it is you don't notice it, like carbon monoxide.
> >> Escalation is inevitable as both sides succumb to the same disease. We
> >> never perfectly *** for every tat, even if we did, it still wouldn't
> >> be perceived that way -- "eye for an eye" -- good in theory, bad in
> >> practice.
> >
> > I can't tell if you're agreeing with Tom or arguing with him, but based
> > on your views expressed on "that other newsgroup" I'm guessing you're
> > arguing with him. I honestly can't fathom why, ROW laws are in place
> > for a reason. Blowing stop signs in front of vehicular traffic is
> > exactly as stupid as riding a brakeless bike in traffic - sure you might
> > be able to get away with it for a while but it's still stupid and
> > dangerous.
>
> Sorry, I'll clarify.
>
> I don't think playing chicken is a good idea, even if the law, strictly
> speaking, is on your side. People may resent having to yield to unlawful
> behavior, but it happens all the time (both ways in car bike
> interactions). The stakes in personal injury are too high to be petty
> about it, and aggression begets aggression.
>
> On a philosophical level, I don't believe that identical ROW rules for
> cars and bikes make sense. I also realize those views are far from
> universally held. I also don't think that fines, for whatever ROW rules
> are on the books, should be identical. Ditto, for those views.
>
> I have tried to explain my beliefs based on what I perceive as the
> realities of car/bike road sharing and the relative degrees of
> convenience, safety and liability, attempting to separate those issues
> where possible.
>
> Like many others, I consider bicycling, from a legal point of view, to
> be more related to pure right of way principles than merely the
> operation of another type of vehicle, so I tend to see these
> disagreements as more meaningful than simple safety and courtesy
> squabbles. Again, I realize these views are not universal, but they are
> sincere.
>
> Philosophy aside, there are two attitudes that I will always be opposed
> to: deliberately endangering another, even if "the law is on your side"
> and blaming motorist aggression on the behavior of other cyclists.
I agree that you can't blame all motorist aggression on cyclists behavior.
But cyclists that blatantly ignore right of way laws when other traffic is
present are as immature and self-centered idiots as many vehicle drivers.
The roads are potential death traps for everybody, that's why there are laws
to govern how traffic proceeds for everybodys safety. As much as I'm for
drivers getting tickets and fines for stupid behavior the same goes for
cyclists.

 

[rdclark]

On Jul 21, 6:27 pm, Zoot Katz <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 21:36:39 -0000, landotter <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >> Well he must have seen them coming if they were that close, why not stop
> >> first & let them by?
>
> >Because they don't have the right of way. I don't drive much, but if
> >I'm at a stop sign and there's a bike coming as if not to slow down, I
> >hit the gas, and they better hope their brakes are dialed in. I won't
> >deliberately hit someone, but I have no problem letting people scare
> >the **** out of themselves.
>
> Cars don't make people crazy?
>
> Would you do the same thing if you were on a bike?

No, you wouldn't. You might let a cyclist crash into you if you're in
a car, as you said in another post, but your wouldn't let a bike (let
alone a car) crash into you if you're on a bike. So, by your own
admission, your self-righteousness ends where your self-preservation
begins. Just like anybody. The difference is that if you're in a car,
you feel invulnerable to and superior to bikes, which makes you a
cager at heart.

r