Re: Do dead cyclists go to Heaven or Hell?

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

From Dave Zabriskie's diary on Bicycling's website
http://www.bicycling.com/tourdefrance/article/0,6802,s1-7-123-14913-1,00.html
=====================
I was talking with Tom. I swear for every one million Tom Boonen fans there
must be at least one Dave Zabriskie fan...and I made sure that I pointed
each one out to him yesterday. Yes, I was really appreciating the fans, they
really helped me get through on a day like that.

But then Boonen comes up with this line. He says, "See those cows over
there? That's what happens when cyclist's die. They turn into cows."
=====================

I dunno. Look at the manure in rec.bikes.* and you'd think they've
already turned into cows.

Ron Wallenfang said:

On Dec 31 2007, 11:03 am, donquijote1954 <[email hidden]>
wrote:

"you know what Christian Republicans prefer to drive..."

TREK 520s

That is hardly the norm for Washington County.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
POST FREE OR DIE!

Ron Wallenfang said:

On Jan 1, 1:44 pm, Tom Sherman <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Ron Wallenfang said:

On Dec 31 2007, 11:03 am, donquijote1954 <[email hidden]>
wrote:
"you know what Christian Republicans prefer to drive..."
TREK 520s

That is hardly the norm for Washington County.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
POST FREE OR DIE!

1. Agreed. I stated my preference as an attack on the stereotype
that Republicans are gas-guzzlers and Democrats are not.

I saw a BMW X5 SUV with an "Impeach Bush" sticker on southbound I-43,
but it may have been driven by a libertarian.

Quoted message said:

2. There's not enough serious year-round bicycle riders in WI to be
characteristic of any group, other than of bike riders themselves.
Months like December just past are brutal enough to insure that there
will never be more than a %age handful of year round bike commuters.

The only place I see a lot of commuters is downtown. There are mostly
club, racer in training and exercise cyclists in places like Fox Point,
River Hills, The Falls and Mequon. A few brave (considering how people
drive) cyclists are seen in the 'hood.

Quoted message said:

3. You could name and characterize my home County but I sure can't
name yours. Where is Holstein -Friesland Bovinia? In WI, there is a
New Holstein but no Holstein that I'm aware of. There's a Friesland
in Columbia county, maybe 100 or so miles from New Holstein. I'm
aware of no Bovinia at all. I can't make heads or tails of the name
you gave.

The "Holstein-Friesland Bovinia" is a joke based on the rural scenery in
the southern part of the state being predominated by pastures with black
and white dairy cows. I currently live in the Milwaukee area, but have
also lived in Madison and the SW "driftless area".

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
POST FREE OR DIE!

Tom Sherman said:

I saw a BMW X5 SUV with an "Impeach Bush" sticker on southbound I-43,
but it may have been driven by a libertarian.

Or merely a fiscal conservative - look at the deficit and the value of
the dollar compared to other currencies. Under Bush, the U.S. has gone
down the tubes.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

donquijote1954 schrieb:

Quoted message said:

OldMan said:

On Dec 31, 9:00 am, donquijote1954 <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Maybe it's because you live in a blue state, but I live in a red
state, and you know what Christian Republicans prefer to drive...

I do live in a blue state but am a Christian Republican myself. And
if I have to drive, I prefer my 16 year old Dakota pickup that gets 23
MPG.

The blue state predominates over your party affiliation and driving
choices. It's like having Republicans in Key West (a blue town), where
biking still is practiced.

Someone in a German cycling newsgroup recently asked whether cycling is
allowed on the Overseas Highway. Is it?

donquijote1954 schrieb:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Someone in a German cycling newsgroup recently asked whether cycling is
allowed on the Overseas Highway. Is it?

No such thing as Overseas Highway that I know of,

Hmm?

I am talking of Route 1.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_Highway

"The Overseas Highway is a 127.5-mile (205.2 km) long road carrying U.S.
Route 1 through the Florida Keys. "

Quoted message said:

but the road to Key
West is hardly rideable, since the bikepath is broken at many points.

So what?

You don't need a "bike path" to cycle.

I asked whether there are any legal traffic restrictions for bicycles.

Quoted message said:

From Homestead to Key Largo is deadly with no bikepath whatsover.

Ah yes, the story with the incompetent American drivers again ...

Quoted message said:

It's
a pity because the scenery is real pretty.

So it should be a nice trip for a bike marathon - if you are
well-trained, you can make it in two days (one there and one back again).

donquijote1954 schrieb:

Quoted message said:

Father Haskell said:

Quoted message said:

But the way things stand now, you are on your own before a monster
with many heads. In other words, nobody cares about cyclists.

Quoted message said:

Never gotten that impression. The GREAT majority of drivers
might show impatience, but none want to see a cyclist
harmed (or killed) just for slowing down traffic for five seconds.

That statement amounts to "most drivers don't drive drunk," and then
getting consolation from it.

Well, I suppose in the US you _will_ go to jail for killing someone by
driving drunk.

In Bavaria, you get parole and can get Minister of Transportation
afterwards ...

Quoted message said:

Well, it only takes one reckless driver with a wide track SUV to wipe
you out. And, as proven by "Myth Busters," talking on the phone is
worst than driving drunk.

That's why it is forbidden in most countries ...

donquijote1954 schrieb:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

but the road to Key
West is hardly rideable, since the bikepath is broken at many points.

So what?

You don't need a "bike path" to cycle.

OK, here it goes, now you can a "virtual bicycle ride"...

(Notice there's a bike path in the beginning, then it disappears.
Notice also there are many SUVs and no bikes.)

55 mph speed limit in urban areas? That's insane!

Apart from that, I've driven on roads with separated carriageways and
2-3 lanes per direction and a speed limit of 100 km/h (or is it even 130
km/h? I'd have to look ...) before, no problem ...

Well, the inner-city S.S. in Trento, Italy with a speed limit of 70
km/h, heavy truck traffic and an interrupted side lane was a bit
annonying, but I would not call it dangerous.

Btw, the road _does_ look nice!

Jens Müller said:

donquijote1954 schrieb:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Someone in a German cycling newsgroup recently asked whether cycling is
allowed on the Overseas Highway. Is it?

No such thing as Overseas Highway that I know of,

Hmm?

I am talking of Route 1.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_Highway

"The Overseas Highway is a 127.5-mile (205.2 km) long road carrying U.S.
Route 1 through the Florida Keys. "

Quoted message said:

but the road to Key
West is hardly rideable, since the bikepath is broken at many points.

So what?

You don't need a "bike path" to cycle.

I asked whether there are any legal traffic restrictions for bicycles.

Quoted message said:

From Homestead to Key Largo is deadly with no bikepath whatsover.

Ah yes, the story with the incompetent American drivers again ...

Quoted message said:

It's
a pity because the scenery is real pretty.

So it should be a nice trip for a bike marathon - if you are
well-trained, you can make it in two days (one there and one back again).

I have Adventure Cycling maps of their east coast Bar Harbor, ME
to Key West, FL route. It certainly included Rt 1 across the Keys!

Maybe that's no longer the case, but I had a friend go there a
couple years ago and he saw quite a few bicyclists riding the route.

There are rude motorists all over the world. I don't know that
Rt 1 over the Keys has any special high concentration of them
though.

SMH

David Kerber said:

In article <[email hidden]>, usenet-11-2007
@tessarakt.de says...

Quoted message said:

donquijote1954 schrieb:

Quoted message said:

On Jan 1, 8:25 pm, Father Haskell <[email hidden]> wrote:

>>But the way things stand now, you are on your own before a monster
>>with many heads. In other words, nobody cares about cyclists.

>Never gotten that impression. The GREAT majority of drivers
>might show impatience, but none want to see a cyclist
>harmed (or killed) just for slowing down traffic for five seconds.

That statement amounts to "most drivers don't drive drunk," and then
getting consolation from it.

Well, I suppose in the US you _will_ go to jail for killing someone by
driving drunk.

In Bavaria, you get parole and can get Minister of Transportation
afterwards ...

In the US, you become a Senator afterwards...

He was already a Senator.

SMH

donquijote1954 schrieb:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Btw, the road _does_ look nice!

The road is nice, but geared toward vehicles, and drivers are not
looking for bikes.

Bikes _are_ vehicles in most jurisdictions.

(I couldn't find the Florida Highway Code or however it is called.)

Jens Müller said:

donquijote1954 schrieb:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Btw, the road _does_ look nice!

The road is nice, but geared toward vehicles, and drivers are not
looking for bikes.

Bikes _are_ vehicles in most jurisdictions.

(I couldn't find the Florida Highway Code or however it is called.)

Bikes aren't vehicles in Calfornia and many other states. In
California, bicyclists have all the rights and responsibilities
as the operator of a vehicle when a bicycle is operated on a
roadway.

This sounds like quibbling, but there are rules in the vehicle
code that apply when a vehicle is not being driven on a highway,
and some of those may not be appropriate for bicycles. So,
either you make bicycles vehicles and put in a lot of exceptions
or you do not make bicycles vehicles but give bicyclists all the
rights and responsibilities that the driver of a vehicle has.
Either way, the outcome is more or less the same. It's just a
question of what approach is easier (given, for example, previously
laws).

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

David Kerber said:

In article <[email hidden]>, usenet-11-2007
@tessarakt.de says...

Quoted message said:

...
In Bavaria, you get parole and can get Minister of Transportation
afterwards ...

In the US, you become a Senator afterwards...

The current "First Lady" (of the US) would be the perfect person to head
a traffic safety campaign, especially addressing those who run stop
signs: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Dutton_Douglas>.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
POST FREE OR DIE!

"Jens Müller" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

55 mph speed limit in urban areas? That's insane!

Yes, the speed limit is usually 65 MPH with people driving typically 70-75
MPH. This is for freeways which are safe at those speeds. Obviously when
people get off of the freeway into the residential areas then the speed
drops down to 45 MPH and below depending on the roads.

The freeways go through towns in the US which is as it should be to produce
a hierarchical structure for roads which is required for efficient
transportation. Nothing unusual about it as shown in the Google map at:

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=37.548014,-122.281566&spn=0.029568,0.035577&t=h&z=15&om=1

If you zoom in you will see companies and larger shopping areas just off the
freeways for quick access for people. Residential house are then further
from the freeways where getting to your house is quick but you live away
from the heavy traffic of the business and shopping areas. It is a very
efficient design.

Jack May said:

"Jens Müller" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

55 mph speed limit in urban areas? That's insane!

Yes, the speed limit is usually 65 MPH with people driving typically 70-75
MPH. This is for freeways which are safe at those speeds. Obviously when
people get off of the freeway into the residential areas then the speed
drops down to 45 MPH and below depending on the roads.

The freeways go through towns in the US which is as it should be to produce
a hierarchical structure for roads which is required for efficient
transportation. Nothing unusual about it as shown in the Google map at:

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=37.548014,-122.281566&spn=0.029568,0.035577&t=h&z=15&om=1

If you zoom in you will see companies and larger shopping areas just off the
freeways for quick access for people. Residential house are then further
from the freeways where getting to your house is quick but you live away
from the heavy traffic of the business and shopping areas. It is a very
efficient design.

It's actually a very inefficient design. What they do in the U.S. is
create a series of isolated neighborhoods with twisty streets, all
dumping out onto a single road, which of course gets terribly
congested.

BTW, there is a lot of housing that seems to go in right next to the
freeways - just drive through Tracy for some examples of new housing
placed there. It may not be right next to the exit ramps, but it is
close enough to the freeway itself to get lots of noise.

Also, your link doesn't work for some reason (various error messages).

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

donquijote1954 schrieb:

Quoted message said:

Jens Müller said:

donquijote1954 schrieb:

Quoted message said:

> Btw, the road _does_ look nice!
The road is nice, but geared toward vehicles, and drivers are not
looking for bikes.

Bikes _are_ vehicles in most jurisdictions.

(I couldn't find the Florida Highway Code or however it is called.)

When the Constitution was signed "all men were created equal."
However, slavery persisted for nearly 100 years, and discrimination
for another 100...

But discrimination is still very much alive. Just that the new
subjects are "the poor who ride a bike as a means of transportation."
Forget what the vehicle code says. By the way, the law also says
bicycles have to keep as close to the right as possible, whatever that
means. A clear contradiction of "bicycles are vehicles too."

All vehicles have to keep to the right.

"as close to the right as possible" means "in the middle of the lane" in
normal lanes.

Quoted message said:

"All animals are equal... but some are more equal than others." -
Animal Farm

"In Florida the bicycle is legally defined as a vehicle."

"A bicyclist who is not traveling at the same speed of other traffic
[what bicycle can?] must ride as close as practicable to the right-
hand curb or edge of the roadway."

http://www.floridabicycle.org/rights/laws.html

What's that? A motor club?

"As close as possible" means at least one meter. If that would endanger
the cyclist, it's not possible, so then make it more, i.e. the middle of
the lane.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Jens Müller said:

donquijote1954 schrieb:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"A bicyclist who is not traveling at the same speed of other traffic
[what bicycle can?] must ride as close as practicable to the right-
hand curb or edge of the roadway."

http://www.floridabicycle.org/rights/laws.html

What's that? A motor club?

"As close as possible" means at least one meter. If that would endanger
the cyclist, it's not possible, so then make it more, i.e. the middle of
the lane.

Just for the purposes of discussion, according to the
Effective Cycling approach a rider doesn't set his
position according to the curb or edge of the roadway.
A rider sets his/her position according to the general
line of motorized traffic, particularly the right
(in North America) tire track. Lanes are classified
as wide or narrow. Wide lanes are those which can be
safely shared. Narrow lanes cannot be safely shared.
When a rider in a narrow lane with an adjacent inside
lane rides on or slightly to the left of the right
tire track, overtaking drivers can readily pass the
rider by crossing a little into the inside lane, without
having to entirely cross the line. No fuss, no muss,
no road hoggery. Everybody gets to go, and nobody
is hard done by.

Even on extra wide outside lanes on boulevards, a rider
sets his/her position according to the general traffic
line (while sharing the lane,) not to the curb or roadside.

For most purposes, forget about the (right) edge of the
street or road. Instead, think in terms of where the
rest of the traffic is. While I'm not an ideologically
purist Effective Cyclist, this way of thinking makes a
lot of sense to me.

cheers,
Tom

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

Tom Keats schrieb:

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Jens Müller said:

donquijote1954 schrieb:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"A bicyclist who is not traveling at the same speed of other traffic
[what bicycle can?] must ride as close as practicable to the right-
hand curb or edge of the roadway."

http://www.floridabicycle.org/rights/laws.html

What's that? A motor club?

"As close as possible" means at least one meter. If that would endanger
the cyclist, it's not possible, so then make it more, i.e. the middle of
the lane.

Just for the purposes of discussion, according to the
Effective Cycling approach a rider doesn't set his
position according to the curb or edge of the roadway.

[...]

Quoted message said:

For most purposes, forget about the (right) edge of the
street or road. Instead, think in terms of where the
rest of the traffic is. While I'm not an ideologically
purist Effective Cyclist, this way of thinking makes a
lot of sense to me.

Well, I just wanted to justify this approach regarding laws with require
keeping to the right.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Jens Müller said:

Quoted message said:

For most purposes, forget about the (right) edge of the
street or road. Instead, think in terms of where the
rest of the traffic is. While I'm not an ideologically
purist Effective Cyclist, this way of thinking makes a
lot of sense to me.

Well, I just wanted to justify this approach regarding laws with require
keeping to the right.

Yes, there are obvious potential conflicts between the
principles of the Effective Cycling technique, and
possible, strict interpretations the Letter of The Law
with regard to keeping to the right.

It is not my intent to argue with you. I suppose my
point is just to show what a grey area is the so-called
rights and responsibilities of cyclists in legal terms.

Ultimately we should all have the preceding & superceding
right to self-preservation. Simplistic keep-to-the-right
laws conflict with that. So does simplistic, arrogant
defiance of those laws. Intelligently considered and
sociable application of technique does not conflict with
our superceding right to self-preservation.

cheers,
Tom

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