Moronic Cyclist Stupidity!

Sir Ridesalot said:

Hi there.

I am 57 and I am a long time resident of Toronto and am an avid
bicyclist who commutes 30 kms daily via bicycle.

I saw in the Saturday, May 31, 2008 edition of the Toronto Sun that
200 cyclists decided to have a protest demanding bicycle lanes on
Bloor Street. In their infinite wisdom (full sarcasm mode here) they
decided to ride their bicycles up the Jarvis Street on-ramp around 7
PM. Apparently they took over three lanes of the westbound Gardiner
Expressway - YES! you read that right EXPRESSWAY! Some of these
cyclists even had children with them.

What on earth were these people thinking? The Gardiner Expressway is
an elevated road that is usually quite busy. They are lucky no one was
injured or killed.
Bicycle lanes on Bloor Street? Are these people serious? Bloor Street
is a *VERY* busy east to west arterial road that does not have room
for bicycle lanes. If the city of Toronto were to remove the parking
along this road it possibly could help traffic flow better because you
would have at least two lanes each way.

Blocking traffic on the Gardiner Expressway is a really good counter-
productive way to protest. I wonder how many motorists who were held
up by these irresponsible cyclists or read the newspaper about it now
think all cyclists are idiots? Such behaviour is not conducive to
promoting bicycling (and cyclists) as a sane and efficient
transportation alternative.

I find it really hard to believe that any parent would take a child up
onto the Gardiner Expressway either on a bicycle or in a bicycle
trailer whilst *KNOWING THAT TRAFFIC WAS NOT BEING STOPPED BEFORE THAT
ONRAMP!*

As far as I am concerned all 200 of these cyclists demonstrated
irresponsible, negligence and pure idiocy. Three of them were
arrested. Pity that. There should have been far more. There would have
been but many of the cyclists threw their bicycles over the fence at
the Dunn and Jameson exit and escaped on foot. Unfortunately the
responsible cyclists are the ones who will be the ones to experience
the rise in driver ire that this protest is liable to have generated.

Witnesses stated that these cyclist were weaving in and out of traffic
and that many cars had to swerve to avoid them. At least one motorist
coming up the Jarvis Street onramp stated that he saw cars nearly plow
into cyclists as the cyclists came off the onramp.

It took nine police cruisers to force the cyclists off the Gardiner
Expessway at the Dunn Avenue/Jameson Street exit.

Damn those moronic bicyclists who behave in such irresponsible
behaviour and/or ride in an irresponsible manner! They are a plague on
bicyclists who do ride in a responsible manner in an attempt to share
the road.

Oh, I noticed in the newspaper article that many of these cyclist were
members of the Critical Mass Bicycle Ride. Perhaps that explains such
bizarre behaviour. Well, one thing is certain; if they want to tick
off motorists and alienate the public they are sure going about it the
right way.

Peter

Here, here.

Lewis.

*****

Quoted message said:

Here, here.

Lewis.

Lewis, being a Brit and all, you should know that the correct term is "hear,
hear!"

Sir Ridesalot said:

Hi there.

I am 57 and I am a long time resident of Toronto and am an avid
bicyclist who commutes 30 kms daily via bicycle.

I saw in the Saturday, May 31, 2008 edition of the Toronto Sun that
200 cyclists decided to have a protest demanding bicycle lanes on
Bloor Street. In their infinite wisdom (full sarcasm mode here) they
decided to ride their bicycles up the Jarvis Street on-ramp around 7
PM. Apparently they took over three lanes of the westbound Gardiner
Expressway - YES! you read that right EXPRESSWAY! Some of these
cyclists even had children with them.

What on earth were these people thinking? The Gardiner Expressway is
an elevated road that is usually quite busy. They are lucky no one was
injured or killed.
Bicycle lanes on Bloor Street? Are these people serious? Bloor Street
is a *VERY* busy east to west arterial road that does not have room
for bicycle lanes. If the city of Toronto were to remove the parking
along this road it possibly could help traffic flow better because you
would have at least two lanes each way.

Blocking traffic on the Gardiner Expressway is a really good counter-
productive way to protest. I wonder how many motorists who were held
up by these irresponsible cyclists or read the newspaper about it now
think all cyclists are idiots? Such behaviour is not conducive to
promoting bicycling (and cyclists) as a sane and efficient
transportation alternative.

I find it really hard to believe that any parent would take a child up
onto the Gardiner Expressway either on a bicycle or in a bicycle
trailer whilst *KNOWING THAT TRAFFIC WAS NOT BEING STOPPED BEFORE THAT
ONRAMP!*

As far as I am concerned all 200 of these cyclists demonstrated
irresponsible, negligence and pure idiocy. Three of them were
arrested. Pity that. There should have been far more. There would have
been but many of the cyclists threw their bicycles over the fence at
the Dunn and Jameson exit and escaped on foot. Unfortunately the
responsible cyclists are the ones who will be the ones to experience
the rise in driver ire that this protest is liable to have generated.

Witnesses stated that these cyclist were weaving in and out of traffic
and that many cars had to swerve to avoid them. At least one motorist
coming up the Jarvis Street onramp stated that he saw cars nearly plow
into cyclists as the cyclists came off the onramp.

It took nine police cruisers to force the cyclists off the Gardiner
Expessway at the Dunn Avenue/Jameson Street exit.

Damn those moronic bicyclists who behave in such irresponsible
behaviour and/or ride in an irresponsible manner! They are a plague on
bicyclists who do ride in a responsible manner in an attempt to share
the road.

Oh, I noticed in the newspaper article that many of these cyclist were
members of the Critical Mass Bicycle Ride. Perhaps that explains such
bizarre behaviour. Well, one thing is certain; if they want to tick
off motorists and alienate the public they are sure going about it the
right way.

Peter

I happened to have a "group breakfast" yesterday with a guy who participated
in a CM ride here last Friday or Saturday night. "600 riders!" he bragged.
When someone asked him what it was about, he said, "because we're angry".
About what? He listed global warming, housing crisis, war, gas
prices...everything under the sun /except/ cyclists' rights. (He only rides
for "cause"-type events, this being the very first.)

What really made him mad? No one would engage him in a political
blatherfest during what was supposed to be a social gathering. I think I
literally saw smoke coming out his ears (wonder if he'll pay the carbon tax
for that!)...

BS (ain't gonna da'ht)

Quoted message said:

Damn those moronic bicyclists who behave in such irresponsible
behaviour and/or ride in an irresponsible manner! They are a plague on
bicyclists who do ride in a responsible manner in an attempt to share
the road.

Oh, I noticed in the newspaper article that many of these cyclist were
members of the Critical Mass Bicycle Ride. Perhaps that explains such
bizarre behaviour. Well, one thing is certain; if they want to tick
off motorists and alienate the public they are sure going about it the
right way.

Peter

http://auditd0rk.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/whaaambulance.jpg

DennisTheBald said:

On Jun 2, 4:42 pm, Sir Ridesalot <[email hidden]> wrote:
...

Quoted message said:

Oh, I noticed in the newspaper article that many of these cyclist
were members of the Critical Mass Bicycle Ride. Perhaps that
explains such bizarre behaviour. Well, one thing is certain; if they
want to tick off motorists and alienate the public they are sure
going about it the right way.

Peter

Sure, but how do you distinguish between a CM ride and the regular
Saturday club ride?

One purposely disrupts traffic (pissing off drivers and engendering bad
will), while the other is /part/ of traffic and looks to promote
cooperation.

One has a political agenda and the other does not.

One recruits jerks and the other rejects them.

It's pretty easy to tell the difference if one has eyes and ears.

HTH

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Sir Ridesalot said:

Hi there.

I am 57 and I am a long time resident of Toronto and am an avid
bicyclist who commutes 30 kms daily via bicycle.

I saw in the Saturday, May 31, 2008 edition of the Toronto Sun that
200 cyclists decided to have a protest demanding bicycle lanes on
Bloor Street. In their infinite wisdom (full sarcasm mode here) they
decided to ride their bicycles up the Jarvis Street on-ramp around 7
PM. Apparently they took over three lanes of the westbound Gardiner
Expressway - YES! you read that right EXPRESSWAY! Some of these
cyclists even had children with them.

What on earth were these people thinking? The Gardiner Expressway is
an elevated road that is usually quite busy. They are lucky no one was
injured or killed.
Bicycle lanes on Bloor Street? Are these people serious? Bloor Street
is a *VERY* busy east to west arterial road that does not have room
for bicycle lanes. If the city of Toronto were to remove the parking
along this road it possibly could help traffic flow better because you
would have at least two lanes each way.

<snip>

Calm down Sir ShortsInAKnot. Lest you think I'm an apologist for the
Critical Mass(holes?) my thoughts and those of many others are on
record at the board referenced below. Join in the debate, you'll be
addressing directly some of the participants of last Friday's Tour de
Gardiner.

http://www.ibiketo.ca/node/2234#comment-4113

Yes these people, and many others, are serious about bike lanes on
Bloor St. Why shouldn't they be?

Bloor is a major east/west artery in the heart of the city, it bisects
the U of T campus, it is a commercial and entertainment corridor; and
it links up with the bike lane on the Bloor St Viaduct, a major route
for commuting cyclists: IT IS THE MOST LOGICAL PLACE FOR BIKE LANES.

But don't take my word for it: Over 15 years ago, in 1992, a Route
Selection Study for on-street Bicycle Lanes done for the former City of
Toronto by the firm Marshall Macklin Monaghan concluded that Bloor St.
was THE NUMBER ONE CHOICE.

What other street do you recommend: Dundas, Eglinton, Lawrence,
Sheppard, Yonge, Bayview, Avenue Rd. etc... Or do those streets not
"have enough room" as well? The fact is to motorists roads never have
enough room and any vehicle that intercedes between them and their
destination should be disallowed.

There are NO bike lanes of any significant length on ANY major arteries
in all of Toronto. If you've ridden extensively in the city you'll know
that it's only the major arteries that provide passage over 400 series
highways, ravines and railways -- these are EXACTLY where bike lanes
belong. I suppose you're content to have bicycles relegated to
secondary side streets that do not and cannot take cyclists where they
want to go, where bicycle lanes are often installed because they occupy
room that motorists and everyone else considers of little value.

The continent over, cars have completely co-opted what was once an
inclusive commons and transformed it into a motorized sewer. Great
swaths of our urban spaces have had pedestrians and every vehicle other
than autos designed out of consideration.

Don't begrudge cyclists their intent of inserting themselves back into
consideration on their own streets, of reclaiming from cars a measure
of civility and space that has been so thoroughly ceded.

Thankfully there are cyclists in Toronto that aren't self-defeating in
their outlook, that are ambitious; they envision and are working toward
building a city in which bicycles and bicycle specific infrastructure
are a significant presence on *major* streets. Bicycle lanes on Bloor
is part of their plan.

Sorni mischaracterizes Critical Mass yet again:

Quoted message said:

One purposely disrupts traffic (pissing off drivers and
engendering bad will), while the other is /part/ of traffic
and looks to promote cooperation.

=v= [censored]. Critical Mass *is* traffic. Indeed, the title
of the first documentary about CM points that out, duh.

Quoted message said:

One has a political agenda and the other does not.

=v= Oh really? What political agenda is that, precisely? My
observation is that there are as many agendas as participants.

Quoted message said:

One recruits jerks and the other rejects them.

=v= Again, [censored]. Anyone is welcome at Critical Mass.
That "recruits jerks" exactly as, um, traffic does.
<_Jym_>

Jym Dyer said:

Sorni mischaracterizes Critical Mass yet again:

Quoted message said:

One purposely disrupts traffic (pissing off drivers and
engendering bad will), while the other is /part/ of traffic
and looks to promote cooperation.

=v= [censored]. Critical Mass *is* traffic. Indeed, the title
of the first documentary about CM points that out, duh.

Quoted message said:

One has a political agenda and the other does not.

=v= Oh really? What political agenda is that, precisely? My
observation is that there are as many agendas as participants.

Quoted message said:

One recruits jerks and the other rejects them.

=v= Again, [censored]. Anyone is welcome at Critical Mass.
That "recruits jerks" exactly as, um, traffic does.
<_Jym_>

Another strikingly coherent post, Jym (sic). Smart of you to DELETE the
question to which I replied. (Hint: poster asked how to tell the
difference between a CM group and a club ride. Had nothing to do with any
alleged "documentary".)

HTHBKIW, BS

On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 14:55:53 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]> may

have said:

DennisTheBald said:

On Jun 2, 4:42 pm, Sir Ridesalot <[email hidden]> wrote:
...

Quoted message said:

Oh, I noticed in the newspaper article that many of these cyclist
were members of the Critical Mass Bicycle Ride. Perhaps that
explains such bizarre behaviour. Well, one thing is certain; if they
want to tick off motorists and alienate the public they are sure
going about it the right way.

Peter

Sure, but how do you distinguish between a CM ride and the regular
Saturday club ride?

One purposely disrupts traffic (pissing off drivers and engendering bad
will), while the other is /part/ of traffic and looks to promote
cooperation.

One has a political agenda and the other does not.

One recruits jerks and the other rejects them.

It's pretty easy to tell the difference if one has eyes and ears.

CM ride groups also vary in their approach; the few CM rides I've been
on have avoided being directly confrontational while still maintaining
a high profile. Much depends upon choice of route, choice of timing,
and (of course) the sanity of the participants. I guess we have a few
more who are just there to ride, rather than to make a statement about
anything but bikes. The police never gave any of us a hassle on the
rides I did, and as far as I could tell, the group didn't give them a
lot of reason to want to do so.

It *is* possible to make a statement without alienating the people
you're trying to persuade...and those who don't get the message are
probably not persuadable anyway. It makes little sense to change
someone from a disinterested spectator into an active opponent, as was
doubtless the case with the Gardiner invasion. (I've driven that
freeway; those idiots would have been hard-pressed to find a dumber
stunt IMO.)

--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Typoes are not a bug, they're a feature.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

Werehatrack said:

On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 14:55:53 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]> may

have said:

DennisTheBald said:

On Jun 2, 4:42 pm, Sir Ridesalot <[email hidden]> wrote:
...
> Oh, I noticed in the newspaper article that many of these cyclist
> were members of the Critical Mass Bicycle Ride. Perhaps that
> explains such bizarre behaviour. Well, one thing is certain; if
> they want to tick off motorists and alienate the public they are
> sure going about it the right way.
>
> Peter

Sure, but how do you distinguish between a CM ride and the regular
Saturday club ride?

One purposely disrupts traffic (pissing off drivers and engendering
bad will), while the other is /part/ of traffic and looks to promote
cooperation.

One has a political agenda and the other does not.

One recruits jerks and the other rejects them.

It's pretty easy to tell the difference if one has eyes and ears.

CM ride groups also vary in their approach; the few CM rides I've been
on have avoided being directly confrontational while still maintaining
a high profile. Much depends upon choice of route, choice of timing,
and (of course) the sanity of the participants. I guess we have a few
more who are just there to ride, rather than to make a statement about
anything but bikes. The police never gave any of us a hassle on the
rides I did, and as far as I could tell, the group didn't give them a
lot of reason to want to do so.

It *is* possible to make a statement without alienating the people
you're trying to persuade...and those who don't get the message are
probably not persuadable anyway. It makes little sense to change
someone from a disinterested spectator into an active opponent, as was
doubtless the case with the Gardiner invasion. (I've driven that
freeway; those idiots would have been hard-pressed to find a dumber
stunt IMO.)

Very well stated. I should have clarified that I was describing or
commenting on the more virulent CM rides. (Also was partly based on the
moron who sat at the breakfast table with me this past Sunday. He's just an
angry guy and joined the weekend CM ride to express his self-rightous moral
outrage, which had NOTHING to do with cycling issues whatsoever. He got
madder and madder when no one wanted to engage him in a political argument
at what was supposed to be a celebratory gathering.)

In general I don't think it's a smart idea to alienate the very people one
is trying to persuade or inform, so if a CM event keeps things on the mellow
side it can only help (IMO).

BS

Pat said:

Quoted message said:

Here, here.

Quoted message said:

Lewis.

Lewis, being a Brit and all, you should know that the correct term is "hear,
hear!"

Thanks, Pat, you are correct and I certainly deserve a reprimand for
that.

Kind regards.

Lewis.

*****

On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 14:42:43 -0700 (PDT) in rec.bicycles.misc, Sir

Ridesalot said:

As far as I am concerned all 200 of these cyclists demonstrated
irresponsible, negligence and pure idiocy.

as far as i'm concerned it's none of your business, and you are
just an anti-bike busybody.

PLONK.

Luke said:

Bloor is a major east/west artery in the heart of the city, it bisects
the U of T campus, it is a commercial and entertainment corridor; and
it links up with the bike lane on the Bloor St Viaduct, a major route
for commuting cyclists: IT IS THE MOST LOGICAL PLACE FOR BIKE LANES.

bike are traffic. they don't need to be stuck in a cycling
ghetto on the edge of the street where they can be doored and
squeezed against the curb by bus and truck drivers.

bike lanes are useless. a wider outside lane with room for
cyclists is actually useful.

Dennis P. Harris said:

Luke said:

Bloor is a major east/west artery in the heart of the city, it
bisects the U of T campus, it is a commercial and entertainment
corridor; and it links up with the bike lane on the Bloor St
Viaduct, a major route for commuting cyclists: IT IS THE MOST
LOGICAL PLACE FOR BIKE LANES.

bike are traffic. they don't need to be stuck in a cycling
ghetto on the edge of the street where they can be doored and
squeezed against the curb by bus and truck drivers.

True.

Quoted message said:

bike lanes are useless.

False.

Quoted message said:

a wider outside lane with room for
cyclists is actually useful.

True.

Dennis P. Harris said:

On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 14:42:43 -0700 (PDT) in rec.bicycles.misc, Sir
Ridesalot <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

As far as I am concerned all 200 of these cyclists demonstrated
irresponsible, negligence and pure idiocy.

Quoted message said:

as far as i'm concerned it's none of your business, and you are
just an anti-bike busybody.

Why did you delete any and all /context/ to the above /opinion/?!?

Quoted message said:

PLONK.

Typical.

In article <[email hidden]>, Dennis P.

Harris said:

Luke said:

Bloor is a major east/west artery in the heart of the city, it bisects
the U of T campus, it is a commercial and entertainment corridor; and
it links up with the bike lane on the Bloor St Viaduct, a major route
for commuting cyclists: IT IS THE MOST LOGICAL PLACE FOR BIKE LANES.

bike are traffic. they don't need to be stuck in a cycling
ghetto on the edge of the street where they can be doored and
squeezed against the curb by bus and truck drivers.

You're right. Through intimidation and duress that's where they're
compelled to ride now, hence the initiative to install *properly
designed* bike ways.

Or, we can just say that a more bicycle friendly city must require of
prospective cyclists that in order to access their own streets they
possess unusually steely nerves, tree trunk sized legs to keep up with
cars, and a generous tolerance for auto imposed hazards and hostility.
Yeah, that's a good way toward beneficial change: discourage those that
contribute to a solution.

Quoted message said:

bike lanes are useless.

Yawn.

Quoted message said:

...a wider outside lane with room for
cyclists is actually useful.

No kidding. But around here such lanes when they exist are given over
to auto parking, and direct cyclists to ride within the door zone.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Sir Ridesalot said:

Hi there.

I am 57 and I am a long time resident of Toronto and am an avid
bicyclist who commutes 30 kms daily via bicycle.

I saw in the Saturday, May 31, 2008 edition of the Toronto Sun that
200 cyclists decided to have a protest demanding bicycle lanes on
Bloor Street. In their infinite wisdom (full sarcasm mode here) they
decided to ride their bicycles up the Jarvis Street on-ramp around 7
PM. Apparently they took over three lanes of the westbound Gardiner
Expressway - YES! you read that right EXPRESSWAY! Some of these
cyclists even had children with them.

No doubt a bunch of car drivers also did.

Quoted message said:

What on earth were these people thinking? The Gardiner Expressway is
an elevated road that is usually quite busy. They are lucky no one was
injured or killed.

Same for the car drivers on there.

Quoted message said:

Bicycle lanes on Bloor Street? Are these people serious? Bloor Street
is a *VERY* busy east to west arterial road that does not have room
for bicycle lanes.

Take a lane away from the car drivers, and do some re-striping.

Quoted message said:

If the city of Toronto were to remove the parking
along this road it possibly could help traffic flow better because you
would have at least two lanes each way.

Blocking traffic on the Gardiner Expressway is a really good counter-
productive way to protest. I wonder how many motorists who were held
up by these irresponsible cyclists or read the newspaper about it now
think all cyclists are idiots? Such behaviour is not conducive to
promoting bicycling (and cyclists) as a sane and efficient
transportation alternative.

Putting-up inner-city freeways is a most evil impingement
upon citizenry.

Quoted message said:

I find it really hard to believe that any parent would take a child up
onto the Gardiner Expressway either on a bicycle or in a bicycle
trailer whilst *KNOWING THAT TRAFFIC WAS NOT BEING STOPPED BEFORE THAT
ONRAMP!*

What, is the Gardiner Expressway some G-d-given thing to drivers?
Anyways, yes -- we /must/ think of the children! For G-d's sake,
won't anyone think of the children?!

What you Torontonians need is for some Vancouverites to come over
there and rid your town of expressways. Open the city up.
Render it accessible. Make it a place more for people than for
cars. Tear down a bunch of those concrete overhead expressways,
and let some sunlight in. You Canadians could use a good hit
of vitamin D anyways. We Vancouverites have long had to put up
with you Torontonians coming over here and trying to turn Vancouver
into another Toronto. Fortunately our LotusLand lifestyle co-opts
you guyz before you get the chance to do too much damage. We'd come
over there and fix you guyz up, but ... <shrug> we don't feel like it.
We're happy enough where we are.

Quoted message said:

As far as I am concerned all 200 of these cyclists demonstrated
irresponsible, negligence and pure idiocy.

So do the POV drivers on there. And I'm sure they daily
outnumber the cyclists by a very wide margin.

Quoted message said:

Three of them were
arrested. Pity that. There should have been far more.

Meanie!

Quoted message said:

There would have
been but many of the cyclists threw their bicycles over the fence at
the Dunn and Jameson exit and escaped on foot.

Kewl. I hope they got their bikes back.

Quoted message said:

Unfortunately the
responsible cyclists are the ones who will be the ones to experience
the rise in driver ire that this protest is liable to have generated.

[censored]!

Driver /ire/? Gimme a break. If anybody should have ire,
it's the victims of self-centred pigs who greedily keep
other people from being able to get around.

But ire gets nowhere except for raising blood pressure.
Better to just make positive change.

Just get rid of the Gardiner Expressway and its ilk, and
there'll be no further problems on there. Then maybe you'd
have a civil city again, instead of a massive interchange,
omnipresently impeding everybody's progress from A to B,
except commuters who just shoot through your city as if it
wasn't even there.

Freeways within cities are garrots to the citizens.
You've gotta expect some self-defence & fightin' back.
Even from otherwise docile Canadians.

Actually, it's kinda nice to see Canadians finally
getting their danders up about sumpthin'.

cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 08:24:37 -0700 in rec.bicycles.misc, "Bill

Sornson said:

Why did you delete any and all /context/ to the above /opinion/?!?

because the context for your idiotic opinion doesn't matter. i
don't know why you fell out of my killfile, but you're back there
now.

sorry, but i'm just not going to waste time and bandwidth reading
your nitpicking quibbling [censored].

On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 16:31:34 -0700 in rec.bicycles.misc,

(Tom Keats) said:

We Vancouverites have long had to put up
with you Torontonians coming over here and trying to turn Vancouver
into another Toronto. Fortunately our LotusLand lifestyle co-opts
you guyz before you get the chance to do too much damage.

yeah, it's the rain that does it. makes brain cells actually
grow. cycling in the wet makes us tougher too.

and it rains even more where i live, a little further up the
ecotopia coast.