Holy shatz! Cop stops bicycle!

[Scott In AztláN]

In rec.autos.driving, Tom Keats said:

>Arrogance is expressed by all kinds of /some/ (but not all)
>road/street users.
>
>But so is co-operation, courtesy and consideration. Those
>things just don't get noticed as much.

I notice. And when it happens, I give a friendly "thank you"
wave to the driver who helped me out. But you're right, most
people don't notice - or, perhaps more correctly, they don't
see it as courtesy and cooperation; they see it as their
due. These are the people who think that, because their turn
signal is activated, they somehow have the RIGHT to merge in
wherever they want; if you slow down and allow them into the
lane in front of you, they don't appreciate it as a small
favor - they think you owe it to them.

>Another, earlier subthread heretofore discusses pedestrians
>who get half-way across a street and stop, just to stop the
>car traffic, just because they can. On the other hand, I
>distinctly recall occasions when a friend of mine had knee
>surgery, was on crutches, and drivers aimed and accelerated
>at him because they thought he was taking too long crossing
>the -- not a street, but a back access alley. I guess the
>drivers thought he was being 'arrogant' for trying to get
>around while being gimped.

As I said earlier, it's easy to tell the truly arrogant
from the merely slow. Crutches are a dead giveaway, don't
you think?

>As a non-driving, transportational cyclist, I've had lots
>of driver arrogance shoved in my face, when I didn't
>deserve it.

As a sometime pedalcyclist, I have had lots of
pedalcyclist arrogance shoved in my face, also. Like the
pedalcyclists who seem to feel that stop signs and
redlights do not apply to them.

So what?

>Driver Arrogance is the most prevalent and pervasive kind
>of on-the-road arrogance

>I bet not many drivers have had as much **** hurled at them
>from, or have been passed-&-cut-off by cyclists, or have
>been threateningly, on-comingly aimed-at in their own lane,
>as the other way around.

OF COURSE you're going to see more arrogant behavior from
motorists - THERE ARE MORE MOTORISTS ON THE ROAD. This makes
raw number comparisons meaningless. What you need to do is
divide the number of arrogant drivers by the total number of
drivers, and compare this ratio to the arrogant
pedalcyclists ratio.

>because drivers have all got at least 2 1/2 tons of aces,
>and good acceleration up their sleeves.

So? Pedalcyclists have Kryptonite locks and greater
maneuverability; they can ride on the sidewalk or a bike
path or even into a shopping mall to escape a motorist bent
on revenge.

Tell me, how often do you see motorists blocking the road to
bicycle traffic the way Critical Mass does? This is the
epitome of arrogance.

>It actually could readily be said that private car drivers
>are the /most/ arrogant group of road users.

Sure, you could say it - it just wouldn't be true.

--
Sloth is the first deadly sin.

 

[E . R .]

And so it panned out that the following script was sculpted by
none other than Tom Keats:

>Now, I'm just a poor guy,
[...]
>And since I live in Vancouver BC,

Ouch, I feel your pain. Those two don't mix well at the
best of times. I'm making 25 racks of high society this
year or I'm out.
:}

>With my current low financial status, I readily submit that
>cyclists like me are most definitely /not/ willing to take
>chances such as bolting into a busy intersection, or any
>other infraction that might result in an expensive fine. Or
>worse, medical expenses incurred by being clobbered by a
>car. I've already spent top-dollar, ensuring that my bike
>and myself are perfectly legal.

Wow! A considerate cyclist who obeys the traffic laws and
doesn't cycle on the sidewalks/Xwalks like some asswipes I
see? A first!

>On the streets, drivers find me considerate, and they
>appreciate my consideration (even though I just don't want
>them to clobber me.) I often take to the side-streets.
>Those can be dangerous, because they're narrow. Anyhow,
>I've observed how drivers on narrow side-streets are
>willing to dive into gaps between parked cars, to let
>oncoming cars go by.

Better than a head-on collision or an impasse...

>I do the same thing as the drivers, and often get an
>appreciative smile & wave from them as they roll by. That
>feels really good to me. But it can be a dangerous practice
>for a cyclist because if improperly done, it could entail
>disappearing from view (between parked cars), and then
>suddenly popping-out into the traffic stream again.

So you pop your head over your shoulder to check for
traffic...

>When I'm on the big arterial streets, I might get yelled-
>at, honked-at, spat-at, have burning cigarette butts or
>McDonald's grunge tossed at me, or all manner of abuse
>directed at me --

You would only deserve that if you were riding on the
sidewalk. Funny how the asswipes often get more
consideration than the good people, eh?

>Tell ya what, though -- if I had to deal with the expense
>of licensing and registration, I might as well sell my bike
>for food, go on the dole, and live on your tax money.

I don't pay income taxes, but let's not get into that... ;}

>Inflicting mandatory licensing & registration on cyclists
>wouuld be, besides an expensive and reduntant inflation of
>governmental bureaucracy, an unconscionable expropriation
>of /your/ right to freedom of movement.

No more so than the same formalities for motor vehicles,
imo, especially here in B.C. where you practically *need* a
car (kudos to you for managing to get by without one!).

>Everyone has the right to ride a bicycle,

This right should be curtailed to a privilege, imo, subject
to the same principles behind driving being a privilege,
including the moral and ethical obligation on the part of
the state to provide *better than adequate* mass transit
over its territory (read integrated railroads).

>whether or not they actually want to. Some of us want to.

I love cycling, but this isn't the most conducive city to
it. Nonetheless, if one avoids the major high-speed
arterials (50 kph speed limit is essentially meaningless on
these, used only for revenue collection) and heavy traffic,
it can still be quite a pleasant endeavour, even in this
very large and rapidly growing metropolis.

>Some of us have to. Especially with the current high (and
>getting higher) gasoline prices.

They're not that high. Try the (European) Soviet Union.

--
E.R. aka S.J.G. aka Ricardo - Xlate & correct for e-mail
reply '91 mx6gt, white, 5sp MT, V1, CB

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>,
E.R. <[email protected]> writes:
> And so it panned out that the following script was
> sculpted by none other than Tom Keats:
>
>>Now, I'm just a poor guy,
> [...]
>>And since I live in Vancouver BC,
>
> Ouch, I feel your pain. Those two don't mix well at the
> best of times. I'm making 25 racks of high society this
> year or I'm out.
>:}

In my low-brow way, 'racks' to me connotes either warehouse
shelving, or breasts of the female persuasion. It's good to
meet a fellow gigolo ;-)

>>With my current low financial status, I readily submit
>>that cyclists like me are most definitely /not/ willing to
>>take chances such as bolting into a busy intersection, or
>>any other infraction that might result in an expensive
>>fine. Or worse, medical expenses incurred by being
>>clobbered by a car. I've already spent top-dollar,
>>ensuring that my bike and myself are perfectly legal.
>
> Wow! A considerate cyclist who obeys the traffic laws and
> doesn't cycle on the sidewalks/Xwalks like some asswipes I
> see? A first!

Nah, there's plenty like me. We just don't get noticed when
we're doing it right.

I ride as per: http://bikesense.bc.ca

>>On the streets, drivers find me considerate, and they
>>appreciate my consideration (even though I just don't want
>>them to clobber me.) I often take to the side-streets.
>>Those can be dangerous, because they're narrow. Anyhow,
>>I've observed how drivers on narrow side-streets are
>>willing to dive into gaps between parked cars, to let
>>oncoming cars go by.
>
> Better than a head-on collision or an impasse...

My 'goal' other than getting to where I'm going (and
enjoying doing it) is to keep the traffic flow flowing
smoothly. Like other reasonable street users, sometimes I
give and sometimes I take. Whichever is called-for to keep
the flow of which I am a part of, going.

>>I do the same thing as the drivers, and often get an
>>appreciative smile & wave from them as they roll by. That
>>feels really good to me. But it can be a dangerous
>>practice for a cyclist because if improperly done, it
>>could entail disappearing from view (between parked
>>cars), and then suddenly popping-out into the traffic
>>stream again.
>
> So you pop your head over your shoulder to check for
> traffic...

Exactly. Just like the drivers do.

>>When I'm on the big arterial streets, I might get yelled-
>>at, honked-at, spat-at, have burning cigarette butts or
>>McDonald's grunge tossed at me, or all manner of abuse
>>directed at me --
>
> You would only deserve that if you were riding on the
> sidewalk. Funny how the asswipes often get more
> consideration than the good people, eh?

I guess a lot of drivers get frustrated because my ride is
set up for practicality and therefore /appears/ slower than
it is. Especially with the milk crate on the back. I get the
same thing from Weekend Warrior cyclists, but I can
generally show them what's what on the first upgrade, if I
feel like it. Drivers can show /me/ what's what, because
they've got all the acceleration. But 20 feet or less from a
stop line is a bad place to cut-off a slow-looking cyclist.

>>Tell ya what, though -- if I had to deal with the expense
>>of licensing and registration, I might as well sell my
>>bike for food, go on the dole, and live on your tax money.
>
> I don't pay income taxes, but let's not get into
> that... ;}

I've gotta see about getting a bunch of GST back, myself.

>>Inflicting mandatory licensing & registration on cyclists
>>wouuld be, besides an expensive and reduntant inflation of
>>governmental bureaucracy, an unconscionable expropriation
>>of /your/ right to freedom of movement.
>
> No more so than the same formalities for motor vehicles,
> imo, especially here in B.C. where you practically *need*
> a car (kudos to you for managing to get by without one!).

A single person like myself in Vancouver, working in the
Lower Mainland, doesn't need a car, except maybe to impress
women with. Up in the interior it can be a different
situation. My brother has a ranch/farm up by Cache Creek,
and I've seen how he depends on the ability to haul veal
calves, pigs, chickens etc around. He & his wife also have
a more fuel-efficient little Toyota to do lighter-weight
runs with.

>>Everyone has the right to ride a bicycle,
>
> This right should be curtailed to a privilege, imo,

That would be retrograde and unconscionable.

> subject to the same principles behind driving being a
> privilege, including the moral and ethical obligation on
> the part of the state to provide *better than adequate*
> mass transit over its territory (read integrated
> railroads).

I figure The State should primarly provide for people to be
able to get around under their own power (and in a safe &
timely manner), so more people can get to markets and put
their money into circulation, thereby keeping the Economy
vivaceous. After all, that's the gov't's main interest in
transportation. If some people choose to go to market in a
less safe manner (i.e: driving), /then/ they should have to
monetarily compensate.

To put it in inhumanly blunt terms, every person who gets
killed by traffic represents a significant loss of input
(and significant increase of outgo) to the Economy. And
every person who sticks the key in the ignition, risks doing
that. Cyclists assume nowhere the same risks as drivers.

>>whether or not they actually want to. Some of us want to.
>
> I love cycling, but this isn't the most conducive
> city to it.

Not quite, but it might be the second-most (after
Victoria, BC).

> Nonetheless, if one avoids the major high-speed arterials
> (50 kph speed limit is essentially meaningless on these,
> used only for revenue collection) and heavy traffic, it
> can still be quite a pleasant endeavour, even in this very
> large and rapidly growing metropolis.

I doubt it's much more of an endeavour than driving. Except
when you get abuse for doing it. Water off a duck's back.

cheers, Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

 

[E . R .]

And so it panned out that the following script was sculpted by
none other than Tom Keats:

>> Ouch, I feel your pain. Those two don't mix well at the
>> best of times. I'm making 25 racks of high society this
>> year or I'm out.
>>:}
>
>In my low-brow way, 'racks' to me connotes either warehouse
>shelving, or breasts of the female persuasion. It's good to
>meet a fellow gigolo ;-)

Héhé, I never really thought of it that way, and it actually
makes for an interesting pun.

On a slightly more serious note, though,
prostitution/gigoloism/that vein is not really my thing in
the least. A rack of high society, of course, means $10 000,
but then you knew that. :} So 25 racks = $250 000.
Realistically, I doubt I'll make anywhere near that -
probably barely enough to make ends meet in practice - but
it's a goal I set, recently raised from $150k after my
recent impulse trip up north. Playing poker can be
profitable, but even that has its limits unless you're world
class material...

>> Wow! A considerate cyclist who obeys the traffic laws and
>> doesn't cycle on the sidewalks/Xwalks like some asswipes
>> I see? A first!
>
>Nah, there's plenty like me. We just don't get noticed when
>we're doing it right.

I notice you guys, but saddest to say, I more often notice
the bad guys who think that the sidewalks and other
pedestrian domains are their personal private high speed
cycle paths. Heavy ticketing of those ashwipes would be a
pleasant change, but the police would claim they "don't have
the time". Yeah right, they sure have the time to waste
catching evil speeding pensioners in old brown manure trucks
(yes, I really did witness this on the #7, poor fellow was
stopped on the westbound shoulder just east of Boundary!).

>My 'goal' other than getting to where I'm going (and
>enjoying doing it) is to keep the traffic flow flowing
>smoothly.

Kudos to you. Now if only everyone thought the same way...

>> So you pop your head over your shoulder to check for
>> traffic...
>
>Exactly. Just like the drivers do.

Actually I rarely look OVER my shoulder (except maybe in
driving tests to please the examiner . My mirrors are
adjusted so as to minimize the blind spot (at least I
believe so), and when an approaching vehicle on my near side
vanishes from my door mirror, I can see that object without
normally turning my head more than 90° to the right.

>I guess a lot of drivers get frustrated because my ride is
>set up for practicality and therefore /appears/ slower than
>it is. Especially with the milk crate on the back.

So *you're* the dude I got stuck behind those æons ago (last
summer, was it?) on what I think was west 3rd! Man you were
slow, and I was creeping behind you courteously and safely
at <<20 kph until I found a safe chance to pass. No, just
yanking yer crank, it most likely wasn't you at all, but ya
never know eh?

>A single person like myself in Vancouver, working in the
>Lower Mainland, doesn't need a car,

Wow, someone who holds a diametrically opposed viewpoint
to mine, how fascinating. Well technically it is true that
you don't really need a motor vehicle to SURVIVE,
yeeeeees, but...

>except maybe to impress women with.

Good luck with that one! But even with my hypothetical 25
racks of high society, I don't think I'd want to "impress"
them that way anyway, since I want them to like *me*, not my
*money* (if and when I ever have any, that is). Dream on,
Ricardo...

>Up in the interior it can be a different situation.

"Up in the interior" is exactly where I've just been
recently. Wouldn't be too practical to get there without a
car. You can fly, but then what? Canada has no integrated
ground transportation to speak of, an unforgivable situation
for a rich country.

>My brother has a ranch/farm up by Cache Creek,

Drove right through that place last week and all! Beautiful
scenery... perhaps no match for farther north, but still
very nice (and kinda parched too).

>>>Everyone has the right to ride a bicycle,
>>
>> This right should be curtailed to a privilege, imo,
>
>That would be retrograde and unconscionable.

It would at least ensure that cyclists are held to the same
standards as other mobile road users, which I think is
reasonable, especially considering the average cyclist in
this city is *far* less considerate and competent than the
typical motorist.

>I figure The State should primarly provide for people to be
>able to get around under their own power (and in a safe &
>timely manner), so more people can get to markets and put
>their money into circulation, thereby keeping the Economy
>vivaceous. After all, that's the gov't's main interest in
>transportation.

Public transportation exists for social as well as financial
economic benefits; these social benefits often cannot be
quantified numerically! Try explaining THAT one to any
Canajun legislator/minister though... ;}

>If some people choose to go to market in a less safe manner
>(i.e: driving), /then/ they should have to monetarily
>compensate.

Well, yeah, I kind of agree, but driving should by
definition by UNNECESSARY for most/all of us.

www.cfl.lu www.sbb.ch www.sncf.fr www.sj.se www.bahn.de

These are but a few examples of [part of] what is needed
here to remove the total dependency on cars. (No
responsibility taken for wrong urls, they're pretty much
guesses on my part!)

>To put it in inhumanly blunt terms, every person who gets
>killed by traffic represents a significant loss of input
>(and significant increase of outgo) to the Economy. And
>every person who sticks the key in the ignition, risks
>doing that.

Right, life itself is dangerous and carries a 100% risk of
death. You're not advocating banning cars, right?

>Cyclists assume nowhere the same risks as drivers.

Statistically that may be so, but I know I'd rather be
protected in the event of a collision. Now don't get me
wrong, I'm kinda playing devil's advocate here, 'cause I'm
pro-biking too, and actually think well implemented citywide
cycle paths can work. Brent P. from Chicago IL USA isn't
with me on this one, and I greatly respect his point of
view, even understand it, but I still believe that a well
implemented system of bike lanes/paths/control
signalization, when COMBINED with assumption of
responsibility and compliance with the laws on the part of
all road users, can be hugely beneficial. I've seen it
working beautifully (so long as you don't jaywalk on the
bike paths that is!) in both the Netherlands and Denmark.

>>>whether or not they actually want to. Some of us want to.
>>
>> I love cycling, but this isn't the most conducive
>> city to it.
>
>Not quite, but it might be the second-most (after
>Victoria, BC).

Victoria is much better for bikers, for sure, though I've
never ridden there. Ottawa looks okayish too, from a
superficial glance. Kamloops isn't bad either, except for
the sprawliness/distance perlava, but that applies here in
Van as well, or in fact in any Canajun city for that matter.

>> Nonetheless, if one avoids the major high-speed arterials
>> (50 kph speed limit is essentially meaningless on these,
>> used only for revenue collection) and heavy traffic, it
>> can still be quite a pleasant endeavour, even in this
>> very large and rapidly growing metropolis.
>
>I doubt it's much more of an endeavour than driving. Except
>when you get abuse for doing it.

Which it sounds as if you don't deserve... but I know what
some motorists can be like during rush hour; getting stuck
in heavy traffic can really make those tempers flare.

>Water off a duck's back.

If everyone were like you there'd be much less of an issue
vis-à-vis (pedestrian-)cyclist-motorist space conflicts.

--
E.R. aka S.J.G. aka Ricardo - Xlate & correct for e-mail
reply '91 mx6gt, white, 5sp MT, V1, CB

 

[E . R .]

And so it panned out that the following script was sculpted by
none other than Tom Keats:

>In article
><[email protected]>,
>"Daniel J. Stern" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>>> Mr. Stern, have you ever ridden a bike?
>>
>> Certainly. I ride mine -- on the street, in traffic --
>> frequently when weather permits.
>
>If nothing else, you are amusing.
>
>"weather permits." Pffft.

They have winter in the T place...

--
E.R. aka S.J.G. aka Ricardo - Xlate & correct for e-mail
reply '91 mx6gt, white, 5sp MT, V1, CB