rural amusement

[Duncan]

"BrettS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Duncan wrote:
> > "Zebee Johnstone" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> >>In aus.bicycle on Mon, 9 Oct 2006 13:53:35 +1000
> >>asterope <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>>"great way to get yourself killed, love."
> >>>
> >>>i almost fell off my bike i was laughing so hard.
> >>
> >>I had a bod on a Vespa tell me I ought to get a flag cos I was "so
> >>hard to see".
> >
> >
> > He's got a point. I mainly lurk here but when you were deciding on a
bike I
> > almost piped up to talk you out of a recumbent. For a lot of drivers
> > they're practicaly invisible, they're less manouverable and wider so
more
> > likely to be clipped. A flag doesn't cut it, a burning flare might be a
> > better option.
> >
> >
> >>If he can't see something 2 foot wide, a foot longer than most
> >>bicycles, and where the rider's seat is as high as a car seat then I
> >>think the RTA's eyesight test needs work.
> >
> >
> > As you yourself have pointed out it's not about eyesight, it's about
> > processing what you see. People just aren't looking for recumbents so
they
> > won't see them. I've seen recumbents so low they don't make it up to a
cars
> > window, on top of that they keep getting stuck lane splitting. A driver
> > could do everything right and still hit them.
>
> Well I would suggest that the driver wouldn't have done *everything*
> right then. Especially as you just pointed out - you can see them.

I don't drive a car but if a recumbent lower than your window split up on
your left side how are you going to see it? This may be rare but I've seen
it happen.

> How is a recumbent (even a low one like your talking about) different
> from other similar sized objects likely to be found on the roads such as:
> * Children?
> * Domestic animals?
> * Wheelie bins?

Well they can all be hard to see which is exactly my point. Do you think
it's always a good idea for children, animals or wheelie bins to be on the
road? I don't want to ban any of these things, just realise the dangers.

> Saying that someone is putting themselves in greater danger because they
> ride a bike which is deemed too small/narrow to be seen properly is a
> cop out. The SMIDSY phenomenon is alive and well putside of cycling
> circles. You only have to see the number of people who drive into the
> back of other cars, busses and trucks to know that size doesn't make a
> scrap of difference.

You're saying there is no increased danger with decreased visibility? I'm
not convinced.

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Tue, 10 Oct 2006 22:55:40 +1000
Duncan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> An upright is a lot taller and is wide at the level of a drivers eyes.

You know we used to have a sports car that had a roof at about the
level of most car's doorhandles. Didn't seem to be a problem.

People see all the time. what they don't do, as you said, is process.

Which isn't about how much they can see. People seem to have very
little problem seeing the light bar on top of cop cars for example.

Ages ago I had a motorcycle with a white fairing. Amazing how visible
that was. Got quite a few comments about "thought you were a cop
bike".

> Not everybody is going to be vocal about it.

I judge by the actions, not the words. Do I have near misses? No.
Do I have swerves or props, or close passes? No.


> In the rare case I mentioned where a bike is 100% obscured it may be a valid
> excuse. I didn't mean to suggest that otherwise it was a valid excuse at
> all.

So "he has a point" isn't "what he says is valid". OK.

>> It's been my experience that people process the bent just fine. If I
>> ride with my brain in gear, act predictably, and don't put myself in
>> silly positions.
>
> It's not a risk I'd personaly be prepared to take on a regular basis and I'm
> not known for living a risk free life..

You do ride a bicycle hmm? So you think the difference between a high
racer and an upright in traffic is that much? Obviously it's not an
opinion I share.

I also think that it's a very funny one, in that the vast majority of
people consider 2 wheels of any kind, powered or no, too dangerous.
To argue that to ride an unpowered upright two wheeler is OK, but one
that has the seat a foot lower isn't, is odd to me.

I presume you consider BMX and lowslung trials type bikes killers too?

>
> What people are supposed to do is irrelevant when your saftey is on the
> line. It doesn't take too many experiences to realise that a significant
> portion of drivers are not paying enough attention. By decreasing your
> visibility you're dramaticaly increasing the number of people who aren't
> paying enough attention to see you.

My "visibility" is either "the light bounces off me and
hits their retina" or it is "They process me". THere's no doubt the
light bounces off me and hits their retina, so it's about processing.

In 20 years of riding 2 wheelers with 2 traffic crashes in that time
(one a 5kmh nudge from behind, the other my own fault due to poor
braking skills) I have some idea of how to tell if they are processing
me.

I've had many more fail to process on the uprights - powered and
unpowered - than on the bent so far. I've had many more miles on them
too, so it's not particularly valid. But I do feel that experience
trumps theory in this case. So tell ya what.... YOu ride a
highracer bent in traffic for 1000km or so and get back to me.
traffic for 1000

Zebee

 

[dave]

Duncan wrote:
> "BrettS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Duncan wrote:
>>> "Zebee Johnstone" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>> In aus.bicycle on Mon, 9 Oct 2006 13:53:35 +1000
>>>> asterope <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "great way to get yourself killed, love."
>>>>>
>>>>> i almost fell off my bike i was laughing so hard.
>>>> I had a bod on a Vespa tell me I ought to get a flag cos I was "so
>>>> hard to see".
>>>
>>> He's got a point. I mainly lurk here but when you were deciding on a
> bike I
>>> almost piped up to talk you out of a recumbent. For a lot of drivers
>>> they're practicaly invisible, they're less manouverable and wider so
> more
>>> likely to be clipped. A flag doesn't cut it, a burning flare might be a
>>> better option.
>>>
>>>
>>>> If he can't see something 2 foot wide, a foot longer than most
>>>> bicycles, and where the rider's seat is as high as a car seat then I
>>>> think the RTA's eyesight test needs work.
>>>
>>> As you yourself have pointed out it's not about eyesight, it's about
>>> processing what you see. People just aren't looking for recumbents so
> they
>>> won't see them. I've seen recumbents so low they don't make it up to a
> cars
>>> window, on top of that they keep getting stuck lane splitting. A driver
>>> could do everything right and still hit them.
>> Well I would suggest that the driver wouldn't have done *everything*
>> right then. Especially as you just pointed out - you can see them.
>
> I don't drive a car but if a recumbent lower than your window split up on
> your left side how are you going to see it? This may be rare but I've seen
> it happen.
>
>> How is a recumbent (even a low one like your talking about) different
>> from other similar sized objects likely to be found on the roads such as:
>> * Children?
>> * Domestic animals?
>> * Wheelie bins?
>
> Well they can all be hard to see which is exactly my point. Do you think
> it's always a good idea for children, animals or wheelie bins to be on the
> road? I don't want to ban any of these things, just realise the dangers.
>
>> Saying that someone is putting themselves in greater danger because they
>> ride a bike which is deemed too small/narrow to be seen properly is a
>> cop out. The SMIDSY phenomenon is alive and well putside of cycling
>> circles. You only have to see the number of people who drive into the
>> back of other cars, busses and trucks to know that size doesn't make a
>> scrap of difference.
>
> You're saying there is no increased danger with decreased visibility? I'm
> not convinced.
>
>
>
>
IMO anyone who hits any of the above deserves to be severely hurt.
Hmmm I have wheely bins What did I do with those bags of cement? <evil>

Dave

 

[Duracell Bunny]

Donga wrote:
> Duracell Bunny wrote:
>> You missed a nice LA ride this morning took, Asterope. You were missed.
>
> DB what's the LardArse schedule these days? Clearly you've shifted from
> Friday to Monday? When and where? Never know I might make it along
> sometime.
>
> Donga
>

It's currently shifting rapidly & unpredictably according to need ...

--
Karen

If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to be a horrible warning.'
Catherine Aird

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Tamyka Bell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>>
>> In aus.bicycle on Mon, 9 Oct 2006 13:53:35 +1000
>> asterope <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> > "great way to get yourself killed, love."
>> >
>> > i almost fell off my bike i was laughing so hard.
>>
>> I had a bod on a Vespa tell me I ought to get a flag cos I was "so
>> hard to see".
>>
>> If he can't see something 2 foot wide, a foot longer than most
>> bicycles, and where the rider's seat is as high as a car seat then I
>> think the RTA's eyesight test needs work.
>>
>> Coming from a motorcyclist it was especially funny. For some reason I
>> didn't say "sure, when you get one, don't you know motorcycles are
>> hard to see?"
>>
>> Zebee
>
> *gasp* no flag? Zebee, I'm shocked! don't tell me - oh my
> god you probably don't even have facial hair!
>
> Tam

The above message by Tam leads me to believe that she is an aborigine. Can
any of you on this confounded group enlighten me as to her true status in
the human scheme of things?

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

 

[dave]

Edward Dolan wrote:
> "Tamyka Bell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>>> In aus.bicycle on Mon, 9 Oct 2006 13:53:35 +1000
>>> asterope <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> "great way to get yourself killed, love."
>>>>
>>>> i almost fell off my bike i was laughing so hard.
>>> I had a bod on a Vespa tell me I ought to get a flag cos I was "so
>>> hard to see".
>>>
>>> If he can't see something 2 foot wide, a foot longer than most
>>> bicycles, and where the rider's seat is as high as a car seat then I
>>> think the RTA's eyesight test needs work.
>>>
>>> Coming from a motorcyclist it was especially funny. For some reason I
>>> didn't say "sure, when you get one, don't you know motorcycles are
>>> hard to see?"
>>>
>>> Zebee
>> *gasp* no flag? Zebee, I'm shocked! don't tell me - oh my
>> god you probably don't even have facial hair!
>>
>> Tam
>
> The above message by Tam leads me to believe that she is an aborigine. Can
> any of you on this confounded group enlighten me as to her true status in
> the human scheme of things?
>
> Regards,
>
> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
> aka
> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>
>
I can confirm that she is human yes

Dave

 

[Edward Dolan]

"dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> "Tamyka Bell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>>>> In aus.bicycle on Mon, 9 Oct 2006 13:53:35 +1000
>>>> asterope <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> "great way to get yourself killed, love."
>>>>>
>>>>> i almost fell off my bike i was laughing so hard.
>>>> I had a bod on a Vespa tell me I ought to get a flag cos I was "so
>>>> hard to see".
>>>>
>>>> If he can't see something 2 foot wide, a foot longer than most
>>>> bicycles, and where the rider's seat is as high as a car seat then I
>>>> think the RTA's eyesight test needs work.
>>>>
>>>> Coming from a motorcyclist it was especially funny. For some reason I
>>>> didn't say "sure, when you get one, don't you know motorcycles are
>>>> hard to see?"
>>>>
>>>> Zebee
>>> *gasp* no flag? Zebee, I'm shocked! don't tell me - oh my
>>> god you probably don't even have facial hair!
>>>
>>> Tam
>>
>> The above message by Tam leads me to believe that she is an aborigine.
>> Can
>> any of you on this confounded group enlighten me as to her true status in
>> the human scheme of things?
>>
> I can confirm that she is human yes

But if she is an aborigine, is she of our species? That is the question!

I am of the opinion that the Australian aborigine is verging on a separate
species of ****. This would account for the very strange way the brain of
Tamyka Bell works - as well as flyingdutch who I am convinced is an
aborigine. Why is it that their messages on AB never make any sense to me?
It may be that I just don't understand how the female mind works, but how do
you explain flyingdutch? Nay, I think your newsgroup is riddled with
aborigines.

Does anyone know if it is possible for an Australian aborigine to mate with
a human being and have viable offspring that are not total freaks? Ed Dolan
the Great needs to know before he can ever rest peacefully in his grave.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

 

[Tamyka Bell]

Donga wrote:
>
> Duracell Bunny wrote:
> > You missed a nice LA ride this morning took, Asterope. You were missed.
>
> DB what's the LardArse schedule these days? Clearly you've shifted from
> Friday to Monday? When and where? Never know I might make it along
> sometime.

Consider it random. Most of the time, everyone pikes.

T

 

[asterope]

The above message by Tam leads me to believe that she is an aborigine. Can
any of you on this confounded group enlighten me as to her true status in
the human scheme of things?

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

I can confirm, with all certainty, that tam is indeed human.

however...

By using the scientific method, i have come to the conclusion that Ed Dolan, on the other hand, is some kind of gnat, or a previously undocumented introduced species of large, annoying mosquito.
The parasitic nature of the Ed Dolan is evident in its behaviour in newsgroups. The Ed Dolan first finds a suitable host thread, and attacks it. It then infects the thread with meaningless prose, after which the host thread eventually becomes sluggish, irrelevant and eventually dies.
It is unclear as to the purpose that the Ed Dolan has for its behaviour, as there is no definite propagation of the species in doing so. One can only surmise that the Ed Dolan behaves in this way because it keeps a personal tally of how many threads it can f*ck.