Divorce Your Car --and get into a relationship with a Bike!



donquijote1954 wrote:
> Bill Funk wrote:
>>> "Equal law" is not fair when you have big fat deadly SUVs pitted
>>> against fragile bikes.

>> SUVs?
>> What's the connection here? Get hit by an SUV or a Toyota, the result
>> is pretty much the same.

>
> Well, let's the SUV is more likely to kill you. I think it's like 16
> times more deadly to the passengers in the little Toyota than another
> car. Let alone if it hits someone in an aluminum bike. Beauty vs. the
> Beast.
>
>> Of course equal law should apply here; bike riders aren't car-proof.

>
> And they are even dangerous while parked: They are oversized and forced
> cyclists into the lane, ie into their death.
>

Duh,
You do know how to get off the bike and walk it around death traps,
don't you? Survival takes precedence over "I rode ALL the way.".
Bill (not that stupid, and no clip hassles) Baka
 
Bill Baka wrote:
> > And they are even dangerous while parked: They are oversized and forced
> > cyclists into the lane, ie into their death.
> >

> Duh,
> You do know how to get off the bike and walk it around death traps,
> don't you? Survival takes precedence over "I rode ALL the way.".
> Bill (not that stupid, and no clip hassles) Baka


The beast (the SUV) may have an evolutionary advantage over the bike
(survival), but I find it humiliating.

What the heck, it's better to be alive and humiliated than proud and
dead, right?
 
"donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Bill Baka wrote:
>> > And they are even dangerous while parked: They are oversized and forced
>> > cyclists into the lane, ie into their death.
>> >

>> Duh,
>> You do know how to get off the bike and walk it around death traps,
>> don't you? Survival takes precedence over "I rode ALL the way.".
>> Bill (not that stupid, and no clip hassles) Baka

>
> The beast (the SUV) may have an evolutionary advantage over the bike
> (survival), but I find it humiliating.
>
> What the heck, it's better to be alive and humiliated than proud and
> dead, right?
>


I'm really glad all the big bad SUV's are out chasing you and leaving the
rest of us alone.
 
"di" <[email protected]> said in rec.autos.driving:

>
>"donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Bill Baka wrote:
>>> > And they are even dangerous while parked: They are oversized and forced
>>> > cyclists into the lane, ie into their death.
>>> >
>>> Duh,
>>> You do know how to get off the bike and walk it around death traps,
>>> don't you? Survival takes precedence over "I rode ALL the way.".
>>> Bill (not that stupid, and no clip hassles) Baka

>>
>> The beast (the SUV) may have an evolutionary advantage over the bike
>> (survival), but I find it humiliating.
>>
>> What the heck, it's better to be alive and humiliated than proud and
>> dead, right?
>>

>
>I'm really glad all the big bad SUV's are out chasing you and leaving the
>rest of us alone.


Actually, Donkey Hotay might be onto something here. Maybe SUVs *do*
have an appetite for pedalcyclists...

http://epaper.ocregister.com/Defaul...ews/2006/09/07&EntityId=Ar00800&ViewMode=HTML

Boy dies when bike struck by SUV
BY SALVADOR HERNANDEZ THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER


A boy was killed Friday morning when his bicycle was struck by an
SUV in an accident that police are still investigating.
Jason Kramer, 13, was wearing a helmet when he was hit at about 9
a.m. at the intersection of Michelson Drive and Butler Street, police
Lt. Rick Handfield said. The Mercedes SUV was driven by an
unidentified 53-year-old woman.
Jason was transported to Western Medical Center in Santa Ana where
he died of his injuries. "We do not suspect that drugs, alcohol or
excessive speed were involved," Handfield said. "I just know (the
driver) is tragically upset about the accident. It’s just a real sad
event," Handfield said.
--
I'm a wreckless driver and damn proud of it!
 
di wrote:
> > The beast (the SUV) may have an evolutionary advantage over the bike
> > (survival), but I find it humiliating.
> >
> > What the heck, it's better to be alive and humiliated than proud and
> > dead, right?
> >

>
> I'm really glad all the big bad SUV's are out chasing you and leaving the
> rest of us alone.


No, if you don't hunt your beast, your beast may eat you. I hunt mine,
you hunt yours. Or is it that you ride in a controlled environment
without beasts?

I know a guy who's like 70, but looks nice and fit. I asked him what
was his secret. He said, "Ride a bike." I asked, "How come you are
still alive?" He replies, "Of course, I ride a stationary bike!"
 
Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> >I'm really glad all the big bad SUV's are out chasing you and leaving the
> >rest of us alone.

>
> Actually, Donkey Hotay might be onto something here. Maybe SUVs *do*
> have an appetite for pedalcyclists...


I'm not actually saying that SUVs have the intention to eat the
cyclist. They are just negligent about it, or perhaps after eating a
little Toyota, they are looking for desert. ;)

> --
> I'm a wreckless driver and damn proud of it!


Any day I'm gonna see a bumper sticker that goes: "Serial Killer, and
Damn Proud About it!" Or "We Support Our Troops, Even Though They Went
Looking For Oil in Iraq, and Damn Proud About it!"
 
di wrote:
> > What the heck, it's better to be alive and humiliated than proud and
> > dead, right?
> >

>
> I'm really glad all the big bad SUV's are out chasing you and leaving the
> rest of us alone.


OK, there are no beasts out there. Don't worry, be happy...

'For more than 30 years, the government has been ramming cars into
walls in an effort to make car crashes safe. The public has been
conditioned to believe that seatbelts, airbags and more "crashworthy"
vehicles are the best ways to protect us from harm on the roads.
Meanwhile, the most basic strategies to deter dangerous driving and
prevent crashes have been ignored. "It's No Accident" provides a rare
glimpse into how the government got seduced by the promise of "safe
crashing." It then examines the major factors involved in crashes
today, including speeding, aggressive driving, distractions (e.g. cell
phones) and drowsy driving. The author reveals that many dangerous
behaviors are now legally PROMOTED by businesses, and that drivers who
kill often walk away with just a small fine. This well-documented
expose is a must-read for anyone concerned about violent death and
injury on our roads and how to stop it.'

http://www.lulu.com/content/186268
 
Sure it's an oversimplification: Not all people in SUVs are predators
(some have been duped by advertising) and not all cyclists are prey.
Actually some cyclists are predators and some are both cyclists and SUV
owners, which helps explain why they favor the lion...

"Perhaps the COMPETITION between SUVs, BAD DRIVERS and INDIFFERENT
OFFICIALS on the one hand and the SMALLER CARS and a handful of daring
CYCLISTS on the other, which is taking place on our WILD, DARWINISTIC
ROADS, can be best understood as a confrontation between LION and
MONKEY, where THE ROADS ARE THE JUNGLE. Then the MONKEY'S REVOLUTION is
the struggle of David vs. Goliath. And this conflict, which could be
easily solved with some COOPERATION and POLITICAL WILL, is yet another
argument in favor of THE REVOLUTION..."

http://webspawner.com/users/bikeforpeace

I think nothing else needs to be said. ;)
 
On 10 Sep 2006 16:01:42 -0700, "donquijote1954"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Sure it's an oversimplification: Not all people in SUVs are predators
>(some have been duped by advertising) and not all cyclists are prey.
>Actually some cyclists are predators and some are both cyclists and SUV
>owners, which helps explain why they favor the lion...
>
>"Perhaps the COMPETITION between SUVs, BAD DRIVERS and INDIFFERENT
>OFFICIALS on the one hand and the SMALLER CARS and a handful of daring
>CYCLISTS on the other, which is taking place on our WILD, DARWINISTIC
>ROADS, can be best understood as a confrontation between LION and
>MONKEY, where THE ROADS ARE THE JUNGLE. Then the MONKEY'S REVOLUTION is
>the struggle of David vs. Goliath. And this conflict, which could be
>easily solved with some COOPERATION and POLITICAL WILL, is yet another
>argument in favor of THE REVOLUTION..."
>
>http://webspawner.com/users/bikeforpeace
>
>I think nothing else needs to be said. ;)


I've been saying for years that penalties for reckless driving should
vary with the listed weight of the vehicle. That would promp drivers
to not buy the huge SUVs and if they did, to drive them carefully. If
you say are caught doing 80 in a 60 in a 2000 pound car, you pay a
$500. Do the same in a 6000 pound 'Burb and the fine is $2500 and
license suspension for 6 months. Stop coddling these killers.
 
On 2006-09-11, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 10 Sep 2006 16:01:42 -0700, "donquijote1954"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Sure it's an oversimplification: Not all people in SUVs are predators
>>(some have been duped by advertising) and not all cyclists are prey.
>>Actually some cyclists are predators and some are both cyclists and SUV
>>owners, which helps explain why they favor the lion...
>>
>>"Perhaps the COMPETITION between SUVs, BAD DRIVERS and INDIFFERENT
>>OFFICIALS on the one hand and the SMALLER CARS and a handful of daring
>>CYCLISTS on the other, which is taking place on our WILD, DARWINISTIC
>>ROADS, can be best understood as a confrontation between LION and
>>MONKEY, where THE ROADS ARE THE JUNGLE. Then the MONKEY'S REVOLUTION is
>>the struggle of David vs. Goliath. And this conflict, which could be
>>easily solved with some COOPERATION and POLITICAL WILL, is yet another
>>argument in favor of THE REVOLUTION..."
>>
>>http://webspawner.com/users/bikeforpeace
>>
>>I think nothing else needs to be said. ;)

>
> I've been saying for years that penalties for reckless driving should
> vary with the listed weight of the vehicle. That would promp drivers
> to not buy the huge SUVs and if they did, to drive them carefully. If
> you say are caught doing 80 in a 60 in a 2000 pound car, you pay a
> $500. Do the same in a 6000 pound 'Burb and the fine is $2500 and
> license suspension for 6 months. Stop coddling these killers.
>


They need to do as in some european countries. The cost of the ticket
should be based on the driver's income. In most cases, the resulting
fine would have the same effect.
 
"chuck" <[email protected]> wrote
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I've been saying for years that penalties for reckless driving should
>> vary with the listed weight of the vehicle. That would promp drivers
>> to not buy the huge SUVs and if they did, to drive them carefully. If
>> you say are caught doing 80 in a 60 in a 2000 pound car, you pay a
>> $500. Do the same in a 6000 pound 'Burb and the fine is $2500 and
>> license suspension for 6 months. Stop coddling these killers.

>
> They need to do as in some european countries. The cost of the ticket
> should be based on the driver's income. In most cases, the resulting
> fine would have the same effect.


1) you're responding to a troll
2) that would definitely violate the "...cruel and unusual..." provisions.

FloydR
 
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
> On 10 Sep 2006 16:01:42 -0700, "donquijote1954"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Sure it's an oversimplification: Not all people in SUVs are predators
> >(some have been duped by advertising) and not all cyclists are prey.
> >Actually some cyclists are predators and some are both cyclists and SUV
> >owners, which helps explain why they favor the lion...
> >
> >"Perhaps the COMPETITION between SUVs, BAD DRIVERS and INDIFFERENT
> >OFFICIALS on the one hand and the SMALLER CARS and a handful of daring
> >CYCLISTS on the other, which is taking place on our WILD, DARWINISTIC
> >ROADS, can be best understood as a confrontation between LION and
> >MONKEY, where THE ROADS ARE THE JUNGLE. Then the MONKEY'S REVOLUTION is
> >the struggle of David vs. Goliath. And this conflict, which could be
> >easily solved with some COOPERATION and POLITICAL WILL, is yet another
> >argument in favor of THE REVOLUTION..."
> >
> >http://webspawner.com/users/bikeforpeace
> >
> >I think nothing else needs to be said. ;)

>
> I've been saying for years that penalties for reckless driving should
> vary with the listed weight of the vehicle. That would promp drivers
> to not buy the huge SUVs and if they did, to drive them carefully. If
> you say are caught doing 80 in a 60 in a 2000 pound car, you pay a
> $500. Do the same in a 6000 pound 'Burb and the fine is $2500 and
> license suspension for 6 months. Stop coddling these killers.


Yep, it makes sense. Let the predator pay and the bicycle play.
 
chuck wrote:
> >>I think nothing else needs to be said. ;)

> >
> > I've been saying for years that penalties for reckless driving should
> > vary with the listed weight of the vehicle. That would promp drivers
> > to not buy the huge SUVs and if they did, to drive them carefully. If
> > you say are caught doing 80 in a 60 in a 2000 pound car, you pay a
> > $500. Do the same in a 6000 pound 'Burb and the fine is $2500 and
> > license suspension for 6 months. Stop coddling these killers.
> >

>
> They need to do as in some european countries. The cost of the ticket
> should be based on the driver's income. In most cases, the resulting
> fine would have the same effect.


A 500 bucks ticket ($100,000 for Donald Trump) for zigzaging around
normal cars would be a good lesson for the SUV.

Also special license should be required for SUVs, tougher regulations
(no phone for sure) and lower bumper. (And no bumper stickers "We
support our troops.")
 
Floyd Rogers wrote:
> "chuck" <[email protected]> wrote
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> I've been saying for years that penalties for reckless driving should
> >> vary with the listed weight of the vehicle. That would promp drivers
> >> to not buy the huge SUVs and if they did, to drive them carefully. If
> >> you say are caught doing 80 in a 60 in a 2000 pound car, you pay a
> >> $500. Do the same in a 6000 pound 'Burb and the fine is $2500 and
> >> license suspension for 6 months. Stop coddling these killers.

> >
> > They need to do as in some european countries. The cost of the ticket
> > should be based on the driver's income. In most cases, the resulting
> > fine would have the same effect.

>
> 1) you're responding to a troll
> 2) that would definitely violate the "...cruel and unusual..." provisions.


OK, bring on the definition of troll, and if you prove it applies to
me, I won't be posting at this forum again.

The same thing happened to the Black Sheep who was expelled by some of
the regular sheep because they thought the predator in sheep's clothing
was their friend. Of course, the predator also gave them special
treatment and didn't fleece them that often.
 
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 11:45:03 -0700, donquijote1954 wrote:

> Also special license should be required for SUVs, tougher regulations
> (no phone for sure) and lower bumper. (And no bumper stickers "We
> support our troops.")


How about a sticker that says "Our troops support this gas-guzzler".

--

David L. Johnson

__o | "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored
_`\(,_ | by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." --Ralph Waldo
(_)/ (_) | Emerson
 
David L. Johnson wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 11:45:03 -0700, donquijote1954 wrote:
>
> > Also special license should be required for SUVs, tougher regulations
> > (no phone for sure) and lower bumper. (And no bumper stickers "We
> > support our troops.")

>
> How about a sticker that says "Our troops support this gas-guzzler".
>


Yeah, at least they would be more honest. It would explain WHY they
support our troops.
 
donquijote1954 wrote:
> David L. Johnson wrote:
> > On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 11:45:03 -0700, donquijote1954 wrote:
> >
> > > Also special license should be required for SUVs, tougher regulations
> > > (no phone for sure) and lower bumper. (And no bumper stickers "We
> > > support our troops.")

> >
> > How about a sticker that says "Our troops support this gas-guzzler".
> >

>
> Yeah, at least they would be more honest. It would explain WHY they
> support our troops.


Here's a bumper stickers for those whose patriotism shows by burning
oil...

"Draft SUV drivers first"

http://www.stickergiant.com/page/sg/PROD/fundri/b5634
 
On 9 Aug 2006 10:45:04 -0700, "donquijote1954"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I hope they don't say something like "put something fun between your
>legs"...
>
>(that's already mine)


Wrong. That is MY saying and I have it copyrighted. I even have it
tattooed right above my wife's ****. For the price of $5,000,000 I
will sell you the copyright.
 
[email protected] wrote:
> On 9 Aug 2006 10:45:04 -0700, "donquijote1954"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >I hope they don't say something like "put something fun between your
> >legs"...
> >
> >(that's already mine)

>
> Wrong. That is MY saying and I have it copyrighted.


Maybe you meant something else. I mean "RIDE A BIKE!"

I even have it
> tattooed right above my wife's ****.


I'd have to see it to believe it. ;)

Mine got a tatoo that goes, "YOU ARE WELCOME TO PLAY IN MY JUNGLE!"
(See my jungle stories below)

For the price of $5,000,000 I
> will sell you the copyright.


The one above is $10,000,000, but I'm reasonable.

WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE
http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote

BANANA REVOLUTION
http://webspawner.com/users/bananarevolution
 
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 03:18:16 -0500, against all advice, something
compelled Kevan Smith <[email protected]>, to say:

>There's really no reason to
>eat meat other than taste.



You say that like that's not a good enough reason.