Cyclists are Victims of the Law of the Jungle

[Matthew Russotto]

In article <[email protected]>,
Wayne Pein <[email protected]> wrote:
>Matthew Russotto wrote:
>
>Here is what really happens routinely.
>
>The bicyclist rides far to the right edge of the road in an effort to
>enable overtaking. Overtaking motorist blasts past with little clearance
>and at high speed, eshowing complete disregard for the person on the
>bike and endangering the bicyclist.

Did the bicyclist get hit? If not, what's the problem?

>The bicyclist experiences this a
>number of times before learning that if he rides further out into the
>lane, motorists are compelled to be more cautious.

He's confusing "caution" with "being blocked". Naturally, the
motorist, when he finally gets an opportunity to pass, will pass
further out -- because the motorist now has two lanes to pass with
rather than one. That's not a change in caution, that's a change in
conditions.

 

[Wayne Pein]

Matthew Russotto wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Wayne Pein <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Matthew Russotto wrote:
>>
>>Here is what really happens routinely.
>>
>>The bicyclist rides far to the right edge of the road in an effort to
>>enable overtaking. Overtaking motorist blasts past with little clearance
>>and at high speed, eshowing complete disregard for the person on the
>>bike and endangering the bicyclist.
>
>
> Did the bicyclist get hit? If not, what's the problem?

I would expect you not to understand, or at least pretend to not
understand in order to be confrontational.

Suffice it to say that most people, whether bicycling or whatever, do
not want to be wrecklessly endangered by the actions of others.

For example, hunters don't want other drunk hunters whizzing bullets by
their heads. Similarly, vulnerable bicyclists don't want motorists
buzzing them. Make sense?



>
>
>>The bicyclist experiences this a
>>number of times before learning that if he rides further out into the
>>lane, motorists are compelled to be more cautious.
>
>
> He's confusing "caution" with "being blocked". Naturally, the
> motorist, when he finally gets an opportunity to pass, will pass
> further out -- because the motorist now has two lanes to pass with
> rather than one. That's not a change in caution, that's a change in
> conditions.

Characterize it that way then if it makes you feel better. The outcome
is still the same.

Wayne

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 10:48:01 -0600, [email protected]
(Matthew Russotto) wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>Love the cyclist assumption that all motorists are overweight.

Yes, the fact that cyclists on average weigh less, enjoy better
fitness, live longer and suffer fewer health problems than drivers is
just one of those myths put about by doctors who collect the
statistics.

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

 

[Wayne Pein]

Matthew Russotto wrote:


>
>
> Sure you can. Just stop obstructing people; that make the world a better place
> for all concerned.


Bicyclists can't obstruct motorists unless they use more than one lane
on a multi-lane road or they use the full width of pavement, ie both
direction lanes, on a two lane road. If a bicyclist causes a motorist to
momentarily slow to his speed and wait until it is clear to pass, that
should be viewed as a rare but occasional part of the fabric of the road
transportation system.


Wayne

 

[Matt O'Toole]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 10:36:23 -0600, [email protected]
> (Matthew Russotto) wrote in message

>> What's New Zealand have to do with it?

> It's a place where they have a legal minimum passing distance, and
> that's what it is. 1.5m is a reasonable clearance

Hey, we have it in Virginia now too -- three feet.

Matt O.

 

[Tim McNamara]

[email protected] (Matthew Russotto) writes:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>Matthew Russotto wrote:
>>> In article
>>> <[email protected]>,
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >Yes, and it's a FAR bigger problem than bicyclists. Again, quit
>>> >whining about negligible problems. Quit making mountains out of
>>> >molehills. Go complain about the bigger problems.
>>>
>>> Stop being a problem and I'll quit complaining. Actually, it's
>>> sufficient not to defend your absolute right, nay duty, to be a
>>> problem. If bicyclists didn't defend the practice of
>>> lane-blocking,
>>I
>>> could shrug it off as a few asshole cyclists.
>>
>> So I shouldn't defend a practice which a) is perfectly legal,
>>and b) causes negligible problems when I do it? Just because it
>>bothers you?
>
> "Perfectly legal" is besides the point. There's all sorts of legal
> but stupid stuff in the vehicle code. And even when lane-blocking
> isn't legal, there's always "bicyclist logic" to pretend it is so.

You keep twisting in your own wind, Matthew, which while amusing isn't
moving you forward.

> As for your b), the problems it causes aren't negligible.

Omniscient now, are we?

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 18:07:19 -0500, "Matt O'Toole" <[email protected]>
wrote in message <[email protected]>:

>>> What's New Zealand have to do with it?

>> It's a place where they have a legal minimum passing distance, and
>> that's what it is. 1.5m is a reasonable clearance

>Hey, we have it in Virginia now too -- three feet.

That's a bit tight if the passing speed is high, but, hey , at least
you have an offence if someone skims past you.

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

 

[jplassenay]

<[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email protected]...

Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> On 9 Feb 2005 15:15:31 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >> If you're going to keep purposely misrepresenting my position,
what's
> >> the point in having this discussion?
> >
> >I don't believe I am misrepresenting your position.
>
> I've explained to you that you are.

Your "explanation" is merely a claim. Your position from the bulk of
your writings is contradictory to this claim.

> Do you claim to know my position
> better than I do?

I just read what you've written. I'll quote some to you...

> >You are making complaints about bicyclists doing things that are
well
> >within the law
>
> WRONG.

Shouting does not prove your point; here's something to prove mine:

"Similarly, if an automobile driver were to drive down the road
straddling a lane line (i.e. with half of his car in one lane and half
in the other), everyone here agrees that would be improper lane usage."

OK so far...

"Yet pedalcyclists think it's OK to straddle the lane line between the
bike lane and the rightmost automobile lane because there are some
'debris' in the bike lane."

'Round these parts, the "bike lane" is not an actual, legal travel
lane, so it is *perfectly legal* to ride right on the stripe. Or maybe
even a little to the left of it.

IOW, you are complaining about bicyclists doing things that are
completely within the law, exactly as I stated.

> >and in general disparaging anyone who may choose to legally use
> >a bicycle on a road.
>
> WRONG.

"In my book, any driver who pilots their vehicle such as to purposely
straddle a lane line is an arrogant ***** - it doesn't matter what
kind of vehicle they are piloting. A car driver would get a ticket for
doing it, and a pedalcyclist should get one for doing it, too."

Ooops, looks like you're caught again. But only if you're complaining
about the situation outlined above. If you're commenting about a
bicycle in the automobile travel lanes, straddling the dividing line,
then I would agree with you. But that's not what your comments imply.

"... spandex-clad butt ..." Etc, etc.

I'm sure if I look harder at your postings, I could find something
else, oh, like complaints about cyclists riding two abreast. Again,
'round here, it's legal.

I'm not sure who it is that you're trying to fool, but I'm not buying
your protestations of innocence.

More likely, you are acting as a bicycling ng MFFY counter-troll.

E.P.

 

[Matthew Russotto]

In article <[email protected]>,
Wayne Pein <[email protected]> wrote:
>Matthew Russotto wrote:
>
>
>>
>>
>> Sure you can. Just stop obstructing people; that make the world a better place
>> for all concerned.
>
>
>Bicyclists can't obstruct motorists unless they use more than one lane
>on a multi-lane road or they use the full width of pavement, ie both
>direction lanes, on a two lane road.

Wrong. When bicyclists prevent motorists from passing them by moving
left to the point that motorists cannot pass them within the lane,
they are obstructing motorists.

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 11:55:38 -0600, [email protected]
(Matthew Russotto) wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

> When bicyclists prevent motorists from passing them by moving
>left to the point that motorists cannot pass them within the lane,
>they are obstructing motorists.

Unless it's not safe to pass within the lane, in which case they are
just ensuring their safety.

I'm guessing you're the only one who misses the irony in accusing
cyclists of "MFFY" while advocating passing in a potentially lethally
dangerous way.

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

 

[[email protected]]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 11:55:38 -0600, [email protected]
> (Matthew Russotto) wrote in message
> <[email protected]>:
>
> > When bicyclists prevent motorists from passing them by moving
> >left to the point that motorists cannot pass them within the lane,
> >they are obstructing motorists.
>
> Unless it's not safe to pass within the lane, in which case they are
> just ensuring their safety.

Well, I have no qualms about obstructing motorists when it's necessary
to ensure my safety, or that of my family.

There are occasionally drivers who share Matthew's mindset. It matters
not. The law is on my side, and I'm not going to risk my life so he
can catch thirty more seconds of Oprah.

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On 21 Feb 2005 12:37:49 -0800, [email protected] wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>There are occasionally drivers who share Matthew's mindset. It matters
>not. The law is on my side, and I'm not going to risk my life so he
>can catch thirty more seconds of Oprah.

Be honest, Frank, what he'll actually catch is most likely to be an
extra 30 seconds in the next traffic jam ;-)

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

 

[Wayne Pein]

Matthew Russotto wrote:

>>Bicyclists can't obstruct motorists unless they use more than one lane
>>on a multi-lane road or they use the full width of pavement, ie both
>>direction lanes, on a two lane road.
>
>
> Wrong. When bicyclists prevent motorists from passing them by moving
> left to the point that motorists cannot pass them within the lane,
> they are obstructing motorists.
>

You should consider that the bicycle driver is only using what he is
entitled to. On the vast majority of occasions that you do in fact use
the bicycle driver's lane to pass him, you should be grateful of his
generosity.

Wayne