Quit your motorcycle and pedal a bicycle!



In article <[email protected]>,
"donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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

<snipped irrelevant lession on entymology>

So. How close were you following the car, and why were you that close at
that speed?

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

> Well, the small one should get away with some stuff not allowed to the
> big one.

For example, you think you should be able to get away with following too
closely. (It's better if the person you followed too closely was yacking
on a cell phone[1] because you can blame it on that.)

[1] You must have been following quite closely to be able to tell that.

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>
faq: http://www.timberwoof.com/motorcycle/faq.shtml
 
In article <z5I%[email protected]>,
bill <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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.

Please come to Berkeley sometime. There's a road west of there that
climbs into the hills. There's a place called "The Wall" where bikers
like to hang out. Hang out there on some summer day and watch the
experienced riders routinely stoppie in.


> There are only a handful of people who can do it and they are probably
> working as stunt men for the movie industry.

All of them must live in the San Francisco area, too.

> 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.

Ah. The informal fallacy of "If I cannot do it, no ordinary mortal can."

(I have not tried stoppieing my motorcycle.)

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

> So. How close were you following the car, and why were you that close at
> that speed?

Don't you get it? It wasn't his fault... It was the fault of the cell
phone company for providing coverage in that area... The sooner you accept
that the sooner you'll fell sorry for him...

--
RCOS #7
IBA# 11465
http://imagesdesavions.com
 
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 20:08:02 -0700, Timberwoof
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Please come to Berkeley sometime. There's a road west of there that
>climbs into the hills.

<pedantic mode on>
West? Would those be the Marin hills?

--
Turby the Turbosurfer
 
P.Roehling wrote:
> "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
>
>
I will admit to the possibility of being inaccurate, but then again I am
a very skilled rider, not just of bicycles, but have about 100,000 miles
on a motorcycle and can't do it. The few times I tried it resulted in
going over, once minor, the other time trashing the bike. If you have
scads of riders doing them, then mass insanity must be gripping the new
riders (possible these days) of they have way too much money to spend on
new bikes and/or repairs. There are none in my area, maybe due to police
with zero sense of humor, or maybe it is a big city thing, like racing
those ridiculous modded Honda front wheel drives, which would embarrass
me clean off the road.

--
Bill (Sleepless biker) Baka
 
Timberwoof wrote:
> 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.

He had it partially laid down at that point and she was already almost
through the intersection and clear of him. Another 0.25 second and they
probably would have missed but he would still have been laid down with
road rash. He turned left to avoid her and she turned left from the
other direction so it was a rear to rear collision. He may have been
doing 55 for all I know since the rest of the group was sell behind him
and it happened so fast that some didn't even see the accident. Girls on
the side of the road do that to guys on motorcycles. Sorry.

>
>> 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.)
>
I have personally never laid one down, but then I learned early on not
to tailgate and to watch 'very' carefully at intersections where someone
could turn in front of me without warning. I can't tailgate on a bicycle
unless it is a bus or big box semi at 35 MPH but I always watch the
oncoming traffic for possible left turners on cell phones. That is just
common survival sense.


--
Bill (Sleepless biker) Baka
 
Timberwoof wrote:
> In article <z5I%[email protected]>,
> bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Please come to Berkeley sometime. There's a road west of there that
> climbs into the hills. There's a place called "The Wall" where bikers
> like to hang out. Hang out there on some summer day and watch the
> experienced riders routinely stoppie in.

Ask them how many bikes and or broken bones it took to get good. There
may be local clusters of groups who get together to do this but I have
not seen it on local roads. Maybe I just don't have the population
density and number of Motorcycle riders where I live. I am also a rider
with 100,000 miles on various motorcycles (pre-1985 pocket rockets) so
the types of bikes I rode may have precluded doing that. I tried it at
fairly high speed on a 1973 Kawasaki 750 2 stroke and messed up the bike
pretty bad, and again at much lower speed on a 198? Kawsaki 650 4
cylinder with end end over but mostly hurt pride. I stopped trying
because I had to work and not convalesce, and I couldn't afford
repairing the bike or buying a new one every time I failed.

>
>
>> There are only a handful of people who can do it and they are probably
>> working as stunt men for the movie industry.
>
> All of them must live in the San Francisco area, too.
>
>> 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.
>
> Ah. The informal fallacy of "If I cannot do it, no ordinary mortal can."
>
> (I have not tried stoppieing my motorcycle.)
>
Maybe so, but the record I did see a video of and if my overloaded brain
cells remember right he started at 119 MPH with full armor on. 600 feet
is still quite a balancing act, so I give this guy tons of respect.



--
Bill (Sleepless biker) Baka
 
Billzz wrote:
> > "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.

Not quite. Jaguars are tree climbers as far as I know, but lions aren't
for the most part.

Motorcycles can only benefit from taming the predators though, and that
would take a miracle --or a banana, according to this story...

The monkey knows that the lion is more powerful than him, and knows he
better use his own weapons, so he decides to be funny, that being his
natural gift. The story goes like this: The lion roars: "Monkey,
I'm made to eat meat, so you better come down right now." And the
monkey replies very cool: "Mighty King, that's doubtful as the
Bible says you were vegetarian, so you can eat my banana..."
(T-shirts with the slogan "You Can Eat My Banana" available now!)

By the way, DO YOU THINK THE LION WILL EAT THE BANANA?
__ No, the lion is a carnivore
__ Why not, he's gonna love it!
__ We gotta wait until he's hungry
__ We can stick it into a sausage
 
Timberwoof wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Well, the small one should get away with some stuff not allowed to the
> > big one.
>
> For example, you think you should be able to get away with following too
> closely. (It's better if the person you followed too closely was yacking
> on a cell phone[1] because you can blame it on that.)
>
> [1] You must have been following quite closely to be able to tell that.
>

I'm thinking here of bar hopping among bikers. Let them be! Not the car
on the SUV though. They can kill many innocents.
 
BroTHeR zAcHaRy wrote:
> [email protected] 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.
>
> *feh*, after a concussion and a broken clavicle, I was back to work two
> days later. I shouldn't have been... but I was.

Knowing him, if it hadn't been for that pesky six week coma thing he
probably would have too. He had the neatest little gizmo to bend his
knee they had to rebuild. Two loops with about two feet of cargo
tiedown strapping between them. Hook one end over your foot and pull
on the other one to raise your leg. Compound fracture of the humerus.
He damn near was a Darwin Award contestant. All this a good 3 years
before Indian Larry did himself in doing the same damn fool thing.

>
> > 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.

The thing is that a ZX-10 MIGHT be able to stoppie. The large cruiser
the guy I know owns couldn't under any circumstances.
 
The point is, not so much that the motorcycle rider was to blame or
not, but that both motorcyclists and cyclists live under the constant
terror of idiots on the phone. WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE.

Countries that ban cell phones while driving

(In Poland you get fined $1,000! while America, of course, ignores the
problem)

http://www.cellular-news.com/car_bans/

But here here's the approach followed by MADD, the politicians and the
traffic authorities (the three wise monkeys)...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Monkeys-nikko-japan.jpg
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Tim Kreitz" <[email protected]> writes:

> As for the rest of Donkey-Hotay's original post: complete drivel.

Yeah, well, what else is new?

> 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.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Okay, I can't let that last statement go by unrebutted
any longer.

Actually, bicycles are one of the most safe transportational
modes. Safer even than being a pedestrian. Motorcycles are
one of the least safe, as is being a pedestrian.

I'll get back to you on that on the weekend and provide some
substantiating references (unless someone else beats me to it.)
For now I've gotta hit the hay and get my 40 winks before my
last graveyard shift of the week.

In the meantime, I'll leave you with this consideration:
motorcycles and bicycles involve differing approaches to
interacting with fellow traffic, hence exposures to
differing risk levels for various scenarios (and perhaps
differing tactics for dealing with those risks.)

Bicycles may not have the "life saving horspower" of MCs,
but they /do/ have some pretty good life saving handling,
if the rider is up to it.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Tom Keats) writes:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Tim Kreitz" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> As for the rest of Donkey-Hotay's original post: complete drivel.
>
> Yeah, well, what else is new?
>
>> 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.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Okay, I can't let that last statement go by unrebutted
> any longer.


Your above statement: "Cagers in metro areas run over bicyclists
at an alarming rate, as well" shouldn't really go by unrebutted
either. But, oh well. One thing at at time.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote:

> The point is, not so much that the motorcycle rider was to blame or
> not, but that both motorcyclists and cyclists live under the constant
> terror of idiots on the phone. WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE.

Absolutely, Donqui. And in future, you should watch your following
distances very carefully‹especially behind idiots on their cell phones.

Hint: If you can tell that the idiot is talking on a cell phone, you're
probably too close.

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>
faq: http://www.timberwoof.com/motorcycle/faq.shtml
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Tom Keats) writes:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Tim Kreitz" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> As for the rest of Donkey-Hotay's original post: complete drivel.
>
> Yeah, well, what else is new?
>
>> 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.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Okay, I can't let that last statement go by unrebutted
> any longer.
>
> Actually, bicycles are one of the most safe transportational
> modes. Safer even than being a pedestrian. Motorcycles are
> one of the least safe, as is being a pedestrian.
>
> I'll get back to you on that on the weekend and provide some
> substantiating references (unless someone else beats me to it.)
> For now I've gotta hit the hay and get my 40 winks before my
> last graveyard shift of the week.
>
> In the meantime, I'll leave you with this consideration:
> motorcycles and bicycles involve differing approaches to
> interacting with fellow traffic, hence exposures to
> differing risk levels for various scenarios (and perhaps
> differing tactics for dealing with those risks.)
>
> Bicycles may not have the "life saving horspower" of MCs,
> but they /do/ have some pretty good life saving handling,
> if the rider is up to it.

Have a look at the motorcycle/bicycle/pedestrian crash numbers here:

http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/drivers/drivers/traffic/crash/final.htm

At the ends of the lines, under "Avg" over the period from years
2000 to 2005 we have:

Pedestrian Crashes: 1,504
Pedestrians Killed: 50
Pedestrians Injured: 1,489

Bicycle Crashes: 1,195
Bicyclists Killed: 11
Bicyclists Injured: 1,155

Motorcycle Crashes: 2,296
Motorcyclists Killed: 81
Motorcyclists Injured: 2,184

Gee whiz, motorcycling in Wisconsin is almost twice as dangerous
as bicycling! And about a third more dangerous than just walking!

Here's another good 'un:
http://neptune.spacebears.com/opine/helmets.html


Pedestrian Bicycle Motorcycle Car

Death Rates
-----------
per 10,000
vehicles N/A N/A 6.7 1.6

per 1 million
population 16.9 2.5 11 12.9

per 1 million
miles travelled 0.2 0.2 27.6 1.3


Injury Rates
------------

per 10,000
vehicles N/A N/A 133 124

per 1 million
population 280 453 210 987

per 1 million
miles travelled 3.9 15 551 99

Hmmm ... maybe all that power & speed that's intrinsic to motorcycles
actually contributes more to crashes than to safety?

I can come up with more, and I'm just about ready to do so.
I fact, I shall.

In the meantime I sincerely hope you don't become another fatality
statistic on your dangerous, stinky, air-pollutin' murdercycle.
The world already has more than enough good people dying uselessly &
needlessly. Please be safe, and stick around to make your positive
contribution to this wonderful world that needs good people to keep
it goin'.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Timberwoof <[email protected]> writes:

> 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.

The numbers seem to indicate that more often, one
accelerates /into/ bad situations.

Out of the frying pan, into the fire.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Stephen!" <[email protected]> writes:
> [email protected]l (Tom Keats) wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Gee whiz, motorcycling in Wisconsin is almost twice as dangerous
>> as bicycling! And about a third more dangerous than just walking!
>
> Wow... You have absolutely no grasp of statistics, do you?

How come you killed rec.bicycles.misc from the Newsgroups list?
What do you fear?

From Ken Kifer's site:
<http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/health/risks.htm>

"There is absolutely no way that I can furnish definite proof that
bicycling is a safe activity. Those of us who bicycle on a regular
basis while following the traffic laws know that it is a safe
activity from years of experience, but we are also aware that other
cyclists have frequent accidents, we assume due to different behavior.
Nor can I do anything to reconcile my various sources of statistics.
However, I think I can easily establish that cycling is much less
dangerous that what the fearmongers insist and that it has compensating
benefits which are more important than the risks involved. I think you
will agree when you finish reading this that bicycling is very far from
being the dangerous activity that the fearmongers like to make it appear."

I invite you to check out the above URL, and to read further.
I assure you it's benign and well-known. And there are some
interesting numbers in there, as well as what I consider an
honest approach to interpreting them.

I am not attacking you. But as a bicyclist, I feel compelled
to defend myself and my fellow riders from the misbegotten
notion that bicycling is particularly dangerous.

Further cites & references bolstering my position shall be forthcoming.

In the meantime, I friendlily wish you a pleasant weekend,
and a Good Life.


cheers,
Tom


--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Chris Horner talks about why he didn't quit the Tour of California
Replies
0
Views
443
Road Cycling
bobcullinan
B
Michelle2008
Should I quit my boyfriend or my job??Please advice!
Replies
0
Views
1K
Road Cycling
Michelle2008
Michelle2008
D
Credit Agricole to quit end 2008
Replies
0
Views
208
Road Cycling
Dan Gregory
D
S
Oh, great... now Periero is threatening to quit
Replies
7
Views
692
Road Cycling
John Rees
J
S
OT:Gadhafi admitted at cnn.com that he quit his nuke bomb building project due to Saddam's demise
Replies
1
Views
665
Road Cycling
[email protected]
C
Top Bottom Back