Quit your motorcycle and pedal a bicycle!



Timberwoof <[email protected]> wrote in news:timberwoof.spam-
[email protected]:

> Just because she's driving around focused on her conversation instead of
> her surroundings is no excuse for you to follow too close and not pay
> attention to yours!



Give it up, Tim... This jerk-off is a Charter Member of the "It Wasn't My
Fault" club... He's been playing the Blame Game for years...

--
RCOS #7
IBA# 11465
http://imagesdesavions.com
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Timberwoof wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > "Dt Lemons 1900" <YEAHRIGHT> wrote:
> >
> > > "Tim Kreitz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > Dt Lemons 1900 wrote:
> > > >> It's never the fault of the motorcycle rider, it's always the fault of
> > > >> the
> > > >> "cage" driver. You have to understand the mentality of the motorcycle
> > > >> rider.
> > > >
> > > > That's 'Cager' to you.
> > > >
> > > > Statistically speaking, the car driver is found to be at fault in just
> > > > over 75 percent of all car-bike crashes, according to the NHTSA. So no,
> > > > it's not ALWAYS the cager's fault. Just most of the time.
> > > >
> > > > As for the rest of Donkey-Hotay's original post: complete drivel.
> > > > Cagers in metro areas run over bicyclists at an alarming rate, as well.
> > > > Robbing yourself of a motorcycle's potentially life-saving horsepower
> > > > and handling for the sake of pedal power is nonsensical.
> > > >
> > > > Tim Kreitz
> > > > 2003 ZX7R
> > > > 2000 ZX6R
> > > > http://www.timkreitz.com
> > > >
> > >
> > > Life-saving horsepower?????

> >
> > Yes. On a bicycle, the only way to get out of a situation is to stop.
> > With a motorcycle, there's also the option to get out of there.

>
> Or simply squeeze on the right.


Yes, as I illustrate in the following paragraph.

> > Consider if I'm stopped at the end of a queue of cars waiting at a red
> > light. I monitor my rear-view mirror and see a car heading towards me
> > faster than it ought to: I sneak over between cars and ahead a few, and
> > avoid a rear-end collision.
> >
> > Consider if I'm cruising along the freeway and some inattentive cager
> > decides to change lanes into me (typically after a merge). Depending on
> > where I am, I could brake hard and still have to deal with the
> > possibility of the cager also braking hard or the car behind me not
> > braking hard ... or accelerate out of there. (Which, since I keep good
> > following distance, I have room to do.)
> >
> > So if you're not an experienced motorcycle rider, don't be quick to
> > dismiss possibilities you haven't thought of.

>
> But the MADD lady doesn't do your job any easier. She challenges you
> without even noticing thanks to her poor reflexes and the yanking on
> the phone.


Were you paying attention when I and several others told you to pay
attention? It doesn't matter what she was doing: she was in front of you
and you should have paid attention to her. You should have been far
enough away that you could have stopped in time. Or, when the light
turned green and she didn't go, you should have noticed and not smashed
into her.

None of which has anything to do with this sub-thread, which is that
sometimes you can accelerate out of a bad situation.

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>
faq: http://www.timberwoof.com/motorcycle/faq.shtml
 
[email protected] wrote:
> Rayvan wrote:
> > donquijote1954 wrote:

>
> > >
> > > Although I was at the speed limit, her stopping was so completely
> > > unexpected that I didn't have time to ride around her, which would have
> > > been the usual evasion tactic. My choices: Dump the bike or visit her
> > > back seat.

> >
> > You had one more choice: Stop the bike properly....
> > Sounds like some riding lessons are in order....
> >

>
> How dare you bring knowledge and logic to a rant. Shame on you. ;)
>
> > --Rayvan
> >
> > Hint: A motorcycle stops faster if you use the brakes properly because
> > rubber has much better grip than does metal and flesh...

>
> Much less painful also. A guy I know "laid it down" because he was
> going to hit a car. I asked him why in the world he would do that and
> he said he would rather have road rash than hit the car. I commented
> that now he had road rash and a broken leg and collarbone because he
> still hit the car. I told him he hit the car harder than if he had
> rode the brakes in. He told me I was nuts and that everybody knows
> sliding the bike was the fastest way to stop but you only did it to
> avoid a worse crash. Running through all of Newton's laws of motion
> and how brakes are much more efficient than grinding chrome off the
> bike to change the kinetic energy to heat meant nothing.
>
> You have to understand that this is the same guy that spent almost two
> months in the hospital after "surfing" his bike and falling off.


*feh*, after a concussion and a broken clavicle, I was back to work two
days later. I shouldn't have been... but I was.

> He also
> only uses the rear brake if he's going over about 25mph because he
> doesn't want to flip the bike by over braking the front.


Idiot. I bought a ZX-10 about ten years ago. It only had 15K mi. on the
odometer. The back rotor, however was concave (so that and a new set of
pads was the first thing I did to it) . The two previous owners were
apparently rear brake lovers, too.
 
On 23 Oct 2006 17:03:36 -0700, "donquijote1954"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Although I was at the speed limit, her stopping was so completely
>unexpected that I didn't have time to ride around her, which would have
>been the usual evasion tactic. My choices: Dump the bike or visit her
>back seat. I hit the brakes and down I went, ass over teakettle.


BWAAA HAAA HAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

--

Home page: http://xidos.ca/scripts/personal/
 
Timberwoof wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Here's a follow up to the original article...
> >
> > (which I totally endorse)
> >
> > "lol, people, you will find anyone else to blame to completely miss the
> > point of the driver in the SUV. Mr. Long's experience with a motorcycle
> > should have prevented this alone, but still, the lady was yacking away
> > needless on a phone while driving. Had she been driving that tank
> > (which, SUV owners should be subject to a harder and much strict
> > license exam; let alone have their insurance cost shoot up %80) like
> > she was supposed to be doing, the accident wouldn't have happened
> > anyway.
> >
> > I don't see where the complication lies. Talking on cell phones in cars
> > = unnecessary distraction to the driver. Ban cell phone use in cars
> > that are in movement."

>
> What if she had been paying attention to the road and stopped for a
> little old lady crossing the street against the light? It would still
> have been your fault for following too closely and not paying attention.
> Just because she's driving around focused on her conversation instead of
> her surroundings is no excuse for you to follow too close and not pay
> attention to yours!
>
> --
> Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>
> faq: http://www.timberwoof.com/motorcycle/faq.shtml


Thanks. I was wondering if anyone was going to mention the obvious.

Harry K
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Harry K" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Timberwoof wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > "donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > Here's a follow up to the original article...
> > >
> > > (which I totally endorse)
> > >
> > > "lol, people, you will find anyone else to blame to completely miss the
> > > point of the driver in the SUV. Mr. Long's experience with a motorcycle
> > > should have prevented this alone, but still, the lady was yacking away
> > > needless on a phone while driving. Had she been driving that tank
> > > (which, SUV owners should be subject to a harder and much strict
> > > license exam; let alone have their insurance cost shoot up %80) like
> > > she was supposed to be doing, the accident wouldn't have happened
> > > anyway.
> > >
> > > I don't see where the complication lies. Talking on cell phones in cars
> > > = unnecessary distraction to the driver. Ban cell phone use in cars
> > > that are in movement."

> >
> > What if she had been paying attention to the road and stopped for a
> > little old lady crossing the street against the light? It would still
> > have been your fault for following too closely and not paying attention.
> > Just because she's driving around focused on her conversation instead of
> > her surroundings is no excuse for you to follow too close and not pay
> > attention to yours!
> >
> > --
> > Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>
> > faq: http://www.timberwoof.com/motorcycle/faq.shtml

>
> Thanks. I was wondering if anyone was going to mention the obvious.


I did mention it yesterday. And what's obvious to you isn't obvious to
everyone. Obviously Mr. Donqi didn't pay attention to my first post, so
I felt compelled to post again.

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>
faq: http://www.timberwoof.com/motorcycle/faq.shtml
 
Timberwoof wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>> Rayvan wrote:
>> You have to understand that this is the same guy that spent almost two
>> months in the hospital after "surfing" his bike and falling off. The
>> bike happily went almost another 50 yards or more without him. He also
>> only uses the rear brake if he's going over about 25mph because he
>> doesn't want to flip the bike by over braking the front. Yet he has
>> successfully lived to be almost 40 years old. My mind boggles.


40 is still young.
>
> He probably won't understand this either, but others here might:
> http://www.timberwoof.com/motorcycle/stoppie.html
>

Have you ever tried a stoppie? Unless you are skilled way beyond the
normal human it will result in a wrong way wheelie all the way over.
There are only a handful of people who can do it and they are probably
working as stunt men for the movie industry. The record was about 600
feet starting at 100 MPH +, but the guy was an Evel Knievel type pro.
I tried something like that when I was younger and dumber and went over
the bars and slid with the bike (motorcycle) on top of me, causing much
unwanted road rash. First time == last time.



--
Bill (Sleepless biker) Baka
 
"Road Glidin' Don" <[email protected]> wrote
in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 23 Oct 2006 17:03:36 -0700, "donquijote1954"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Although I was at the speed limit, her stopping
>>was so completely
>>unexpected that I didn't have time to ride
>>around her, which would have
>>been the usual evasion tactic. My choices: Dump
>>the bike or visit her
>>back seat. I hit the brakes and down I went, ass
>>over teakettle.

>
> BWAAA HAAA HAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAAA!


That was my initial reaction also. Granted I
had extra special effects of coffee, uri(runny
nose + laughter = snot everywhere)
--
Keith Schiffner
History does not record anywhere at any time a
religion that has any rational basis. Religion is
a crutch for people not strong enough to stand up
to the unknown without help. But, like dandruff,
most people do have a religion and spend time and
money on it and seem to derive considerable
pleasure from fiddling with it.
Robert Heinlein
 
Road Glidin' Don wrote:
> On 24 Oct 2006 14:29:09 -0700, "donquijote1954"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >TWO WHEELS GOOD, FOUR WHEELS BAD

>
> Unless you're a twit cross-poster who doesn't know how to stop a
> motorcycle.
>


I learned fast enough and never went down again: Too much front brake
in light rain. Luckily I was slow enough not to hurt myself.

Still two wheels is better than four wheels because they are the
underdog in this dog-eats-dog traffic. And they pollute less to boot.
 
Timberwoof wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Dt Lemons 1900" <YEAHRIGHT> wrote:
>
> > It's never the fault of the motorcycle rider, it's always the fault of the
> > "cage" driver. You have to understand the mentality of the motorcycle
> > rider.

>
> Oh, baloney! Some of us bikers know we're more exposed to traffic
> stupidity, so we advocate reasonable following distances jut for this
> sort of thing.
>


I see you are ready to bow to every stupid driver out there on four
wheels, but in the struggle between big and stupid and small and smart,
the winner should be the last one. It's survival of the fittest not the
biggest.

In the following paragraph think of the animal on two wheels (cyclist
or motorcyclist) as an insect, or better yet as a monkey. Well, the
monkey has developed an strategy based on staying on the treetops
(similar to cyclists having bike lanes), well away from the predators
down there (SUVs and other aggressive cagers)...

(the comparison is not totally scientific, but you get the point about
how to deal with the jungle out there)

"insects are prey to many animals; monkeys, anteaters, coatimundis,
spiders, and frogs all enjoy an occasional insect such as a termite or
a grasshopper. For this reason, insects have developed many
techniques to escape predators. Grasshoppers and katydids (insect
similar to a grasshopper) have powerful hind legs that allow them jump
from place to place at incredible speeds. Many animals use the
camouflage to remain unseen. A great number of animals, including
insects, birds, and wild cats, in the Amazon are able to blend into the
background. Some animals have mechanism that allow it to defend or
attack. An example of such would be the scorpion which can use its
stinger to kill a prey or defend itself when under attack. Monkeys
try to stick to the trees. In the trees, they are able to quickly move
about. When on land, however, they can become targets for jaguars and
other wild cats."

http://library.thinkquest.org/21395/graphics/fauna/forest.html
 
I don't have to tell you that the big fish eats the little fish, but I
got to remind you that the SUV eats the rest of the vehicles out there.

'Department of Transportation scientists study the "kill rate" - how
manyother people certain vehicle models are responsible for killing
each year in crashes. Looking at SUVs, these scientists came to a
frightening conclusion. For every one life saved by driving an SUV,
five others will be taken. In one specific instance, they found that
the SUV Chevy Tahoe kills 122 people for every 1 million models on the
road. In comparison, the Honda Accord kills 21 people.'

http://www.suv.org/newsarticle.html
 
"donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Timberwoof wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> "Dt Lemons 1900" <YEAHRIGHT> wrote:
>>
>> > It's never the fault of the motorcycle rider, it's always the fault of
>> > the
>> > "cage" driver. You have to understand the mentality of the motorcycle
>> > rider.

>>
>> Oh, baloney! Some of us bikers know we're more exposed to traffic
>> stupidity, so we advocate reasonable following distances jut for this
>> sort of thing.
>>

>
> I see you are ready to bow to every stupid driver out there on four
> wheels, but in the struggle between big and stupid and small and smart,
> the winner should be the last one. It's survival of the fittest not the
> biggest.
>
> In the following paragraph think of the animal on two wheels (cyclist
> or motorcyclist) as an insect, or better yet as a monkey. Well, the
> monkey has developed an strategy based on staying on the treetops
> (similar to cyclists having bike lanes), well away from the predators
> down there (SUVs and other aggressive cagers)...
>
> (the comparison is not totally scientific, but you get the point about
> how to deal with the jungle out there)
>
> "insects are prey to many animals; monkeys, anteaters, coatimundis,
> spiders, and frogs all enjoy an occasional insect such as a termite or
> a grasshopper. For this reason, insects have developed many
> techniques to escape predators. Grasshoppers and katydids (insect
> similar to a grasshopper) have powerful hind legs that allow them jump
> from place to place at incredible speeds. Many animals use the
> camouflage to remain unseen. A great number of animals, including
> insects, birds, and wild cats, in the Amazon are able to blend into the
> background. Some animals have mechanism that allow it to defend or
> attack. An example of such would be the scorpion which can use its
> stinger to kill a prey or defend itself when under attack. Monkeys
> try to stick to the trees. In the trees, they are able to quickly move
> about. When on land, however, they can become targets for jaguars and
> other wild cats."
>
> http://library.thinkquest.org/21395/graphics/fauna/forest.html


This seems to be good advice. Ride your motorcyle in the trees and you
won't get run down by a Jaguar.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Timberwoof <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>He probably won't understand this either, but others here might:
>http://www.timberwoof.com/motorcycle/stoppie.html


You say there that the torque created by the inertial and braking
forces is clockwise. I don't think that's possible. In both diagrams
that torque is counterclockwise, tending to transfer weight from the rear
wheel to the front. In the case of the BMW, you reach the traction
limit of the tire before the weight on the rear tire reaches 0. In
the case of the Honda, you don't.

Hmm... maybe you meant the torque created by the inertial, braking,
and gravitational forces is clockwise?

(of course the "inertial force" exists only in the accelerated frame
of reference of the motorcycle, but that's a lot more convenient than
trying to find a useful inertial frame)
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Matthew Russotto) wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> Timberwoof <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >He probably won't understand this either, but others here might:
> >http://www.timberwoof.com/motorcycle/stoppie.html

>
> You say there that the torque created by the inertial and braking
> forces is clockwise. I don't think that's possible. In both diagrams
> that torque is counterclockwise, tending to transfer weight from the rear
> wheel to the front. In the case of the BMW, you reach the traction
> limit of the tire before the weight on the rear tire reaches 0. In
> the case of the Honda, you don't.
>
> Hmm... maybe you meant the torque created by the inertial, braking,
> and gravitational forces is clockwise?


You're absolutely correct; my description was in error. Thanks for
pointing that out; I corrected the web page.

> (of course the "inertial force" exists only in the accelerated frame
> of reference of the motorcycle, but that's a lot more convenient than
> trying to find a useful inertial frame)


I hope you're okay with the phrase ' momentum "torque" '.

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>
faq: http://www.timberwoof.com/motorcycle/faq.shtml
 
"bill" <[email protected]> wrote

> Have you ever tried a stoppie? Unless you are skilled way beyond the
> normal human it will result in a wrong way wheelie all the way over. There
> are only a handful of people who can do it and they are probably working
> as stunt men for the movie industry.


Uh, unless you're *way, way* off in your estimate, all those "stunt men"
live within ten miles of me.

In fact, there are scads of riders out there who can pull a controlled
stoppie, and with the explosion of "stuntahs" and their assorted websites
over the last few years, their numbers are no doubt still growing by leaps
and bounds.

That is not to say that there weren't a lot of trashed bikes, broken bones,
and serious road rash strewn along the learning curve that led to
competence, but your statement that there are "only a handful of people who
can do it" is wildly inaccurate.

Pete
 
"Timberwoof" <[email protected]> wrote

>> Hmm... maybe you meant the torque created by the inertial, braking,
>> and gravitational forces is clockwise?

>
> You're absolutely correct; my description was in error. Thanks for
> pointing that out; I corrected the web page.


What!? An open admission of a mistake on Usenet? And worse yet, a *polite*
admission?

I just *knew* that last oyster tasted funny...

Pete
 
Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), donquijote1954
trolled in rec.autos.driving:

<snip of nothing of importance>

STFU, trolling scum!


>
 
On 23 Oct 2006 17:03:36 -0700, "donquijote1954"
<[email protected]> wrote:

<snip>

>Although I was at the speed limit, her stopping was so completely
>unexpected that I didn't have time to ride around her, which would have
>been the usual evasion tactic. My choices: Dump the bike or visit her
>back seat. I hit the brakes and down I went, ass over teakettle. I
>never touched her. I landed on top of the bike, fortunately, emerging
>with a badly bruised elbow (not to mention a rip in my leather jacket)
>and a pretty nasty welt on my upper thigh. The motorcycle got beaten up
>pretty good but everything was put right for about $400 -- more than
>the bike itself is probably worth.


Gee, given the choice of landing on a nicely upholstered car seat or a
slab of pavement, I'd go for the car seat! Do they have really soft
pavement where you ride?

Al Moore
DoD 734
 
In article <Uxn%[email protected]>,
bill <[email protected]> wrote:

> Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
> > On 23 Oct 2006 17:03:36 -0700, "donquijote1954"
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> I was riding my motorcycle to work one morning a few months ago when
> >> the car in front of me stopped. Cold. The woman behind the wheel had a
> >> phone to her ear, but she also had the green light. There wasn't any
> >> traffic to speak of and there was nobody in front of her. In other
> >> words, she stopped for absolutely no reason at all (except, probably,
> >> for whatever it was someone had just whispered into her shell-like
> >> ear).
> >>
> >> Although I was at the speed limit, her stopping was so completely
> >> unexpected that I didn't have time to ride around her, which would have
> >> been the usual evasion tactic. My choices: Dump the bike or visit her
> >> back seat. I hit the brakes and down I went, ass over teakettle. I
> >> never touched her. I landed on top of the bike, fortunately, emerging
> >> with a badly bruised elbow (not to mention a rip in my leather jacket)
> >> and a pretty nasty welt on my upper thigh. The motorcycle got beaten up
> >> pretty good but everything was put right for about $400 -- more than
> >> the bike itself is probably worth.
> >>

> >
> > All this proves is that you were either tail-gating or innatentive.

>
> In 15 years of almost daily motorcycle riding I never rear ended a car,
> nor came remotely close. The same rules as bicycles, keep you eye on ALL
> possible hazards.
> I had a friend get a broken hip, but even that was not his fault since
> some really old (antique) lady turned left in front of him and even
> though he tried to lay it down the car clipped the rear of his bike and
> tossed him at about 50 MPH.


Let's see now. He braked as hard as he could on the steel and plastic
parts of his bike, and fifty feet later, he was still doing 50 MPH.
Makes me wonder how fast he was going when he was still on his wheels.
Probably 55 MPH.

I'm having a hard time figuring out what happened. She was oncoming and
turned left ... and clipped the rear end of his motorcycle? That doesn't
compute.

> Whenever you are on the road, Bike, cage, or even walking, you are at
> the mercy of idiots.


But you can mitigate that by riding intelligently and learning skills to
handle the bike: For instance, how to stop a bike quickly. (Hint: Not
on the steel and plastic bits.)

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>
faq: http://www.timberwoof.com/motorcycle/faq.shtml