Cyclists are Victims of the Law of the Jungle



On Sun, 6 Feb 2005, Usual Suspect wrote:

> Speaking of cyclists, I once met a guy who said his group of bicyclists
> especially hated pickup truck drivers, because they are the ones who
> show the least consideration to them, so they like to key pickup trucks
> and truck-based SUVs as they ride by them


Gracious me, what a good idea. That'll *certainly* result in better
treatment of bicyclists by drivers.
 
Teage wrote:
>
> Are Bicycle riders subservient twits, or do they admit by action

they
> should Not be on the road?


Logic error.

Thanks for playing.
 
Dennis P. Harris wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 22:45:06 -0800 in rec.bicycles.misc, "greggery
> peccary" <.@.> wrote:
>
>
>>i have seen many close calls (head-ons) when people
>>must pass me-sometimes i even have to jump onto the sidewalk.

>
>
> just hold the lane. if they want to pass when it's unsafe, it's
> the cagers' problem. the law requires them to wait UNTIL IT IS
> SAFE TO PASS.
>
>

So you are telling him to hold the lane until he gets hit? The law is
not going to re-assemble your body. The law will slap the driver of the
car on the wrist, but even that is not a guarantee. I like to be right,
but not DEAD right, as someone else has mentioned.
Bill Baka
 
"FLATORG" <[email protected]> writes:

> "Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> The ignorant car drivers already make that assumption; some drivers
>> are not ignorant, of course. I find that the percentage of drivers
>> who are just plain mean seems to be increasing slowly over time,

>
> Because Bicycle assholes are getting meaner. Throwing tings at cars,
> keying them, and so on


Oh ********. I've never done that in my 45 years. I don't know any
bicyclists who have done that ****, and I know dozens. And we all
have to deal with car-driving morons regularly.

It's quite clear from driving (15,000 to 18,000 urban area miles a
year) and from riding my bike (6,000 to 7,000 miles a year) that
drivers in general are becoming more aggressive, less cooperative and
angrier. It's not being caused by the relative handful of cyclists on
the road, but cyclists are an easy target for jackasses to vent their
frustration toward.

And they are of course still the minority- most people just pass the
cyclist and get on with their life, not giving it a second thought.
That's the way it should be. You go your way, I'll go mine.
 
Scott en Aztlán <[email protected]> writes:

> On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 22:34:50 -0600, Tim McNamara
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> As you said, car drivers are clueless regarding the law. But like
>>> my grandpa used to say: "you can be right, and you can be DEAD
>>> right."

>>
>>And you have a solution in mind for this?

>
> Sure: use your brains, and keep out of harm's way. People who
> needlessly put themselves into danerous situations are idiots.


Which is not a solution, it's a platitude. Whaddya got in mind- make
it illegal for people to drive their cars so that bicyclists and
pedestrians can be safe?

The only way to avoid dangerous situations is to not do anything. Not
much of a way to live.
 
"FLATORG" <[email protected]> writes:

> "Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Scott en Aztlán <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>> > On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 18:55:38 -0600, Tim McNamara
>> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >>> If the Bicyclist is outside the bike lane, it is his fault. No
>> >>> loss to mankind.
>> >>
>> >>Another one who doesn't know the laws. Geez. How do you people
>> >>get driver's licenses?

>
> All Bicycles need licenses, and plates, and a cyclist license card
> too to make them finally be responsible for their actions and face
> fines. It is the ONLY way to solve all the problems we have.


What difference do you think that would make? It doesn't work in the
case of car drivers!
 
Usual Suspect <[email protected]> writes:

> Scott en Aztlán wrote:
>
>>
>> Heh heh - you're the one who's going to end up as a quivering mass
>> of bloody sushi at the side of the road, and you're calling MY
>> thinking faulty?


Yup. See, I don't subscribe to the "might makes right" principle that
you support. You should just 'fess up to Don Quixote that it
*is* the Law Of The Jungle on the roads. He promised to go away if
that was admitted to him, and you seem to believe in it.

> Dear Bicycle Lovers,
>
> I know this will make you want to key various vehicles even more to
> vent your anger. Just remember, he probably drives some sort of
> Durango-like, but not Durango hickmobile (I'm not an expert on
> those). Leave my Corolla alone. Thanks


Dude, you're just being delusional now.
 
"Teage" <[email protected]> writes:

> "Usual Suspect" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>
>> > Scott en Aztlán <[email protected]> writes:
>> >
>> >> On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 18:55:38 -0600, Tim McNamara
>> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>> If the Bicyclist is outside the bike lane, it is his fault.
>> >>>> No loss to mankind.
>> >>>
>> >>>Another one who doesn't know the laws. Geez. How do you people
>> >>>get driver's licenses?
>> >>
>> >> The real question is, you pedalcyclists KNOW that drivers are
>> >> like this, and yet you put yourselves in harm's way anyway. Just
>> >> who is bucking for a Darwin Award here?
>> >
>> > Are you just continuing to troll, or are you really that
>> > oblivious to your faulty thinking?

>>
>> He's a known MFFY (me first f* you). I bet he's a Jesus freak too
>> who goes to church every Sunday where a God's spokesman officially
>> forgives him for all the bicyclists he killed the prior week.

>
> No forgiveness needed when the flipping bicycle swerves outside his
> little lane and gets whacked, stupid idiot. Paint a little bicycle
> with a cross on it the stupid bicycle lane.


Troll bait really works on you, doesn't it? LOL!
 
Scott en Aztlán <[email protected]> writes:

> On 6 Feb 2005 21:42:39 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>
>>Tim McNamara wrote:
>>> Scott en Aztlán <[email protected]> writes:
>>>
>>> > One might suspect that pedalcyclists don't take the lane "for
>>> > safety" at all, but rather to make some sort of Critical
>>> > Mass-esque statement about pedalcyclists' rights...
>>>
>>> You're overreaching here and perhaps you should read the laws for
>>> yourself. You can find them via Google for almost any state.

>>
>>Scott is fairly level-headed - it strikes me as odd that he is not
>>completely familiar with the traffic laws in his own state.
>>
>>I used to ride on the road myself. But aggressive and malicious
>>drivers gave me a reason to just stick with driving a car for
>>transport.

>
> Now THAT is a level-headed solution - and has been my point all
> along.


I see- since everyone else has chosen to be a legless, car-dependent
idiot I should too? No thanks. Going along with the crowd has never
been my thing.
 
"Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Scott en Aztlán <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 22:34:50 -0600, Tim McNamara
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>> As you said, car drivers are clueless regarding the law. But like
> >>> my grandpa used to say: "you can be right, and you can be DEAD
> >>> right."
> >>
> >>And you have a solution in mind for this?

> >
> > Sure: use your brains, and keep out of harm's way. People who
> > needlessly put themselves into danerous situations are idiots.

>
> Which is not a solution, it's a platitude. Whaddya got in mind- make
> it illegal for people to drive their cars so that bicyclists and
> pedestrians can be safe?
>
> The only way to avoid dangerous situations is to not do anything. Not
> much of a way to live.


""I see dead cyclists"" the little boy shrieked as he pedaled away on his
tricycle.
Grow Up, Most all of you have cars already, and you are also the ones that
cut too close to bikes!
 
"Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "FLATORG" <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > "Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> Scott en Aztlán <[email protected]> writes:
> >>
> >> > On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 18:55:38 -0600, Tim McNamara
> >> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>> If the Bicyclist is outside the bike lane, it is his fault. No
> >> >>> loss to mankind.
> >> >>
> >> >>Another one who doesn't know the laws. Geez. How do you people
> >> >>get driver's licenses?

> >
> > All Bicycles need licenses, and plates, and a cyclist license card
> > too to make them finally be responsible for their actions and face
> > fines. It is the ONLY way to solve all the problems we have.

>
> What difference do you think that would make? It doesn't work in the
> case of car drivers!


Yes it does. In the State of NY they are going to pass laws requiring such
on all bicycles in the next 2 years.
And I trust their judgement far more than yours, simpleton.
 
Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 21:08:17 -0600, "FLATORG" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >> >That is why bike lanes do *not* work.
> >> >The car driver expects the bike to stay in that lane.
> >> >
> >> >If there was no line, the Car driver would watch out for the bike

more.
> >>
> >> Wrong. The car driver would assume the bike has no business being

on
> >> the road AT ALL.

> >
> >Right, so if the bike swerves out of the bike lane into the Road he

is
> >toast, run-over, flattened, and it is his fault, just like a car

swerving
> >into another lane. No line is Better!

>
> I'll say this: that's some fascinating logic.
>


This is like Newspeak: WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS
STRENGTH and bike lanes are bad for cyclists.
 
Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 22:34:50 -0600, Tim McNamara
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> As you said, car drivers are clueless regarding the law. But like

my
> >> grandpa used to say: "you can be right, and you can be DEAD

right."
> >
> >And you have a solution in mind for this?

>
> Sure: use your brains, and keep out of harm's way. People who
> needlessly put themselves into danerous situations are idiots.
>

Good advice. I just got the stationary bike today. It has the added
benefit of helping with the hands as well. At least it'll keep me fit
until the Law of the Jungle is abolished on the roads and I can bring
my real bicycles out.
 
Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> On 6 Feb 2005 21:42:39 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >
> >Tim McNamara wrote:
> >> Scott en Aztlán <[email protected]> writes:
> >>
> >> > One might suspect that pedalcyclists don't take the lane "for
> >> > safety" at all, but rather to make some sort of Critical

Mass-esque
> >> > statement about pedalcyclists' rights...
> >>
> >> You're overreaching here and perhaps you should read the laws for
> >> yourself. You can find them via Google for almost any state.

> >
> >Scott is fairly level-headed - it strikes me as odd that he is not
> >completely familiar with the traffic laws in his own state.
> >
> >I used to ride on the road myself. But aggressive and malicious
> >drivers gave me a reason to just stick with driving a car for
> >transport.

>
> Now THAT is a level-headed solution - and has been my point all

along.
>
> It's like the guy who drives his new Lincoln over to a 7-Eleven in
> Compton and leaves the engine running while he runs in for a Slurpee;
> the owner knows (or should know) that what he's doing is dangerous,
> but he does it anyway. Sure, he has the right to do it, but that
> doesn't make it smart.
>


It's like the monkey that was killed for disputing the lion's share.
Roads belong to the cars. Well, to the SUVs, but you know what I mean.
 
Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 22:45:38 -0600, Tim McNamara
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> The real question is, you pedalcyclists KNOW that drivers are like
> >> this, and yet you put yourselves in harm's way anyway. Just who is
> >> bucking for a Darwin Award here?

> >
> >Are you just continuing to troll, or are you really that oblivious

to
> >your faulty thinking?

>
> Heh heh - you're the one who's going to end up as a quivering mass of
> bloody sushi at the side of the road, and you're calling MY thinking
> faulty?
>


They are in the same mind frame as the suicide bombers in Iraq--without
the virgins.
 
Usual Suspect wrote:
> Tim McNamara wrote:
>
> > Scott en Aztlán <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 18:55:38 -0600, Tim McNamara
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> If the Bicyclist is outside the bike lane, it is his fault. No
> >>>> loss to mankind.
> >>>
> >>>Another one who doesn't know the laws. Geez. How do you people

get
> >>>driver's licenses?
> >>
> >> The real question is, you pedalcyclists KNOW that drivers are like
> >> this, and yet you put yourselves in harm's way anyway. Just who is
> >> bucking for a Darwin Award here?

> >
> > Are you just continuing to troll, or are you really that oblivious

to
> > your faulty thinking?

>
> He's a known MFFY (me first f* you). I bet he's a Jesus freak too who

goes
> to church every Sunday where a God's spokesman officially forgives

him for
> all the bicyclists he killed the prior week.


The True Believers ride SUVs. GOD BLESS AMERICA!
 
It's interesting how cyclists are victims of the Law of the Jungle, and
then blamed for being on the predators' way. Any solution?

Sure, SEPARATION of predator and prey, by line or wall. Would anyone
favor a wall? ;)

On Fri, 30 Jun 1995 [email protected] wrote:
> Violation for traffic laws by *any* vehicle leads to unpredictibility


> that affects *all* vehicles. It also contributes to a
> self-perpetuating devil-may-care attitude that leads to increasingly
> reckless behavior. "If one car can slip through a yellow-turned-red,
> why can't two?" It doesn't matter if the vehicles are bikes, cars, or


> busses. "We" say it and the drivers say it: "it's a jungle out

there".
> I don't want to live in a jungle.



I'm sorry, I haven't made myself clear. I agree that cyclists ought to
follow the rules of the road, as ought pedestrians and motorcyclists,
truck drivers, etc. But to focus efforts on bicyclists is
discriminatory.
They don't break laws any more frequently than anyone else, the rules
of
the road are not set up to accomodate them in the first place, and they

pose far less risk of harm than other vehicles. You can swat at
bicyclists all day long, if you like, and the epidemiology is still
going
to be the same, more people killed in motor vehicle accidents every
year
than died in the Viet Nam war. Air bags or no air bags. It's ridiculous

to insist that bicycle safety--or anyone's safety, for that matter--
hinges on whether bicyclists follow "the rules of the road" when people

driving cars don't follow them, because cars are bigger and they kill
more people. That's why it's discriminatory to focus on bicycles,
because
it's out of proportion with the impact that they have on safety.

John Lauerman

http://list.massbike.org/archive/199506/0147.html
 
"Cyclists came at the bottom of this heap."

Whether heap or the food chain cyclists are at the bottom. It's a
jungle out there! In this case it's London...

Of course, drivers want bikers OUT. And they are right. Predators and
prey do NOT mix.

'According to The Highway Code, which sells half a million copies a
year, each of which is probably read once, cyclists have equal rights
to the road. The reality on the streets, however, can be very
different. Cyclists often find their journeys punctuated by a series of
near misses: cars making sharp left turns in front of them; car doors
opening unexpectedly and threatening to throw them into the traffic;
drivers on mobile phones clipping them with their wing mirrors. "It is
a series of frustrations and annoyances caused by the idiocy of
drivers," says James, who cycles regularly to work through central
London. "Sometimes I wish I had a spike on the side of my gloves, which
I could scrape down the side of their cars as they cut me up once
again."

Despite what many cyclists will tell you, most drivers aren't actually
out to push cyclists off the road. It's just that they don't think they
should be there in the first place.

"The majority of drivers are not actively aggressive towards cyclists,"
says Stuart Reid, head of the sustainable transport unit at TRL, the
transport consultancy, and co-author of a government- sponsored study
into motorists' attitudes to cyclists. "The relationship is more
complex than that. There is a sense in which drivers don't think
cyclists are as legitimate users of the road as other drivers. They see
them as lower down the pecking order. Drivers will tend to take the
worst examples of cycling behaviour they have experienced and
extrapolate them to all cyclists."

In 2002, Reid and his colleagues interviewed 620 motorists about their
attitudes to other road users. The most common complaint they heard was
that, with roads becoming more congested, "inconsiderate driving", such
as failing to signal or not behaving courteously, simply added to the
stress of getting around. Among many sinners on the road were those
they saw as travelling too slowly, such as elderly or learner drivers -
though for some "unac-some, unacceptably slow" meant driving within the
speed limit - and this, naturally enough, included anyone on two wheels
without an engine.

"There is a strong anxiety among drivers about holding other drivers
up," says Reid. "When drivers encounter something moving slowly, a
pedestrian, say, or a cyclist, they experience a certain amount of
stress and they don't feel the user deserves to be on the road. When
you come up behind a cyclist you are nervous. You don't want to slow
other motorists down and you are nervous the cyclist will do something
unpredictable. Your reaction is to get round the problem and forget
it."

Reid's respondents felt that, whatever The Highway Code might say,
there was a de facto hierarchy on the roads, with larger, faster
vehicles warranting more respect than smaller, slower ones. Cyclists
came at the bottom of this heap.'

http://financialtimes.printthis.cli...0000e2511c8,ft_acl=,s01=1.html&partnerID=1744
 
And in reference to the above article about London, this reader states
that cyclists should not have equal rights as automobiles, but actually
MORE rights.

Again, before there's war, it's better to separate.

Velorution in the mind
The Financial Times has a worthy but dull article on the resurgence of
urban cycling in the UK, with a focus on London. It cannot escape from
the cliche' of the number of people riding through red lights; it is
like if every article about digital photography mentioned people taking
illegal pictures at museums. Of course figures of injuries caused by
riding through red lights are never offered.

The torpor in the journalist's mind is evident in the last few
paragraphs:

There's no doubt that car drivers need to clean up their act. Taking
speed limits down to 20mph in built-up areas will make the roads safer
for motorists, cyclists and pedestrians alike. Enforcing the ban on
mobile phone use will help drivers become more attentive. And applying
the Highway Code more strictly will make many people think twice about
engaging in the current bully-boy hierarchy of bigger is better.

But cyclists need to perk up too. Running red lights and bouncing up on
to the pavement is unlikely to improve conditions either for them or
motorists. More cyclists obeying the rules and showing that they are
just like other road users is a far more attractive and safer prospect.

Cycling can transform congested cities - just look at Amsterdam. The
trick is to show everyone else that cyclists are legitimate road users.
And then we can properly celebrate those who choose a means of
transport that really does benefit us all.


Now, saying that motor vehicles should have the same rights as
pedestrians or cyclists is like saying that water skiers should be
allowed on all waters in front of a popular beach.
The Highway Code by instigating this non-sensical equality status, that
inevitably leads to the law of the jungle, is bunk. It has the same
moral standing as the South African Pass Law.

It is not abiding to rules that we should exhort, but consideration to
all other people and especially to those who are more vulnerable than
ourselves.
Yes there are definitely inconsiderate bicycle riders in London, and it
is absolutely no excuse to say, 'It is a jungle out there, I need to
defend my self'. We need to raise the level of social responsibility,
starting by ourselves. The roads are a commons to be enjoyed by
everyone, starting by people on foot. Then the greater or more
dangerous the vehicle one chooses to use, the fewer rights one has and
the more consideration one needs to give to more vulnerable people.

http://velorution.blogspot.com/2004/11/velorution-in-mind.html
 
"Scott en Aztlán" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 18:17:49 -0600, Tim McNamara
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>> The ignorant car drivers already make that assumption; some drivers
> >>> are not ignorant, of course. I find that the percentage of drivers
> >>> who are just plain mean seems to be increasing slowly over time,
> >>
> >> Because Bicycle assholes are getting meaner. Throwing tings at cars,
> >> keying them, and so on

> >
> >Oh ********. I've never done that in my 45 years.

>
> Gee, so I suppose since I personally have never killed anybody that
> murder doesn't exist?
>
> Let me guess: you fell off your bike without a helmet one too many
> times?
>


Your helmet is way too tight on your head, your eyes are bugging out => (O)
(O)
mini-brain. Deal with it!
 

Similar threads