Saw an intelligent bicyclist today

[Brian Huntley]

On Mar 1, 5:36 pm, Nate Nagel <[email protected]> wrote:
> Well, the most flagrant violations of the 85% rule are found on roads on
> which pedestrians and cyclists are prohibited, so I don't see the issue
> with simply following it.

Once you get the speeds up everywhere else, you can also ban
pedestrians and bicycles from those places too.

What's with all those damned crosswalks and stoplights downtown,
anyway? If they just take the obvious path and knock down enough
buildings on the corners for cloverleafs, we can do away with all
that.

 

[Nate Nagel]

Brian Huntley wrote:
> On Mar 1, 5:36 pm, Nate Nagel <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Well, the most flagrant violations of the 85% rule are found on roads on
>>which pedestrians and cyclists are prohibited, so I don't see the issue
>>with simply following it.
>
>
> Once you get the speeds up everywhere else, you can also ban
> pedestrians and bicycles from those places too.

Why? There's a time and a place for high speed traffic, and there's a
time and a place for pedestrians and bicycles. Simply because you're
worried about pedestrians on surface streets you want to keep Interstate
highways signed at 55 MPH until the heat death of the universe? How
does that even make sense?

> What's with all those damned crosswalks and stoplights downtown,
> anyway? If they just take the obvious path and knock down enough
> buildings on the corners for cloverleafs, we can do away with all
> that.

(smacks forehead)

Seriously. Is it even possible to have a rational, reasonable
discussion anymore? I'm starting to think "no."

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

 

[[email protected]]

On Mar 1, 7:32 pm, [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
> In article <dd4ec975-b4cb-47a9-840f-595a7b2e9...@u72g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > If you want to compare total damages by cyclists vs motorists, you
> > can't propose adding in only the tiny car dings caused by bicyclists,
>
> Tiny dings my ass. You should have seen the big ass dent I mostly pushed
> out of the fender of my grandmother's car where some kid on a bike ...

Your horror story doesn't matter, Brent. As I said, the number of
dented fenders caused by other cars absolutely overwhelms the tiny
number caused by bicycles.

You are so deep into your car worship that you've lost all sense of
proportion.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[[email protected]]

On Mar 1, 7:36 pm, [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
> In article <e0b9bcce-1eaa-4b7e-a7ae-0f46b8d79...@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > risk to anyone else but motorists. For one simple example, I'm sure
> > that nearly 100% of motorists speed through school zones.
>
> I drive through two school zones every day on my commute to and from
> work. I take different routes each way, two different schools. I don't
> speed in either of them. However in the one on the way home I am
> tailgated, usually by the parents heading to the school to pick up their
> precious little snowflake.
>
> > But it
> > would take extreme callousness to say we should let them drive through
> > those zones as fast as 85% want to.
>
> You have no understanding of the 85th percentile method ...

I'd dispute that in detail if it were worthwhile to dispute. The
point is, you are always asking that speed limits be raised. That's
typical motorist behavior, seeking ever more privileges.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Doc O'Leary]

In article <[email protected]>,
Nate Nagel <[email protected]> wrote:

> Again, the damage to my own property, the waste of my time, and the
> potential legal liability is of FAR more concern to me than the life of
> an irresponsible stranger. I guess I believe in personal responsibility
> too much to waste my time caring.

Why do you assume the cyclist is the irresponsible stranger? If life
has so little value to you, do you also support summary execution of
drivers found to be at fault in a crash?

--
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com,
heapnode.com, localhost, ntli.net, teranews.com, vif.com, x-privat.org

 

[Doc O'Leary]

In article <[email protected]>,
Nate Nagel <[email protected]> wrote:

> Doc O'Leary wrote:
> >
> > I don't understand what that has to do with refuting my point. If
> > anything, it supports me. A driver doesn't expend any effort of their
> > own to move the vehicle, so conservation isn't much of a priority for
> > them and they should be coming to a full stop. Since simple observation
> > shows that cars are the ones making the majority of the rolling stops,
>
> My observation does not show that. Especially if you count instances as
> instances per vehicle observed. For cars it's pretty low. For cyclists
> it's 100%, in my experience.

You've already made your observation bias very clear. If you actually
want to make a *scientific* observation, just camp out at one of the
intersection you think the oh-so-bad cyclists are causing all the
trouble at and record *all* the traffic over the course of a day (or,
better, longer). My hypothesis is that you'll find cars cause each
other far more trouble than cyclists.

--
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com,
heapnode.com, localhost, ntli.net, teranews.com, vif.com, x-privat.org

 

[Stephen Harding]

Brent P wrote:

> I didn't say anything about clothing. What is inconsistant about your
> view is that you adopt the 'speed kills' nonsense but not the nonsense of
> the helmet zealots. In other words you can make your own safety choices
> just fine but everyone else are morons that need to be controlled.

What on earth are you talking about?

Because I'm laissez faire on bicycle helmet use, to maintain
consistency I should therefor believe traffic should be left
to regulate itself? Or at least speed limits should be left
to individual standards?

<sigh>

OK, so you're laissez faire about traffic control. Perhaps
you should then have no problem with a commercial airline
pilot hopping in his 747 containing 300 passengers and flying
600 mph at 500' AGL via whatever route takes his fancy?

You'd be rather hypocritical and inconsistent if you restricted
him from flying his way while you can drive your way.


SMH

 

[[email protected]]

On Mar 1, 8:02 pm, [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
> In article <34dded03-ed63-4d14-ab48-c71afeb7b...@p73g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 1, 3:14 pm, [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>
> >> Obviously you didn't watch the news report I pointed you to. Here's a
> >> summary. Bicycle racer gets hit running a red signal. Interviewed people
> >> saying that cars do the damage and bicycle riders should be special.
>
> > I watched it. IIRC, it was not "people" saying bicycle rider should
> > be special. It was one guy with a round face and funny glasses.
>
> > He was correct in saying that cars cause lots of damage. He was wrong
> > in saying that the idiots doing the racing were not to be blamed, or
> > whatever he implied. (BTW, do keep in mind that it's standard
> > technique in such interviews to edit out many reasonable statements so
> > only the uncompromising ones can be broadcast, for the sake of
> > controversy.)
>
> The problem is that I've heard this same argument for running red signals
> and special treatment so many times in so many places for so many years it
> wasn't shocking or odd to hear it again in the news report.

If you feel that way, I suggest you contact the one guy in that video
who was actually making that argument and go argue with him. Don't
bother _me_ about his argument; I've already stated repeatedly that I
disagree with him.

> > The consistent factor is this: You don't want to be delayed when
> > you're driving.
>
> I told you before frank, it doesn't bother me so much when I am driving.
> It bothers me when I am BIKING.

Hmm. I don't recall you ever complaining about that in a thread that
didn't include rec.autos.driving. I wonder why.


> >> > Yes, I remember. You disallow the solution that's been shown to
> >> > work perfectly about three miles from my house, by simply proclaiming
> >> > that it doesn't work.
> >> They don't 'work perfectly', far from it.
> > The folks in that neighborhood had no complaints about their speed
> > humps. Your predictions of gouged pavement, broken car parts, etc.
> > have not come true, AFAIK. Stop whining. Slow down.
>
> Your sample of one doesn't coung.

Well, it counts for the people that live there! The racer-boys aren't
so happy, but the resident's don't care about them.

> > Excellent! Another success - reducing motor vehicle traffic!
>
> I won't bike there either, Frank. And guess what, less sales tax
> revenue requires more property tax revenue.

Sales tax generated in a residential neighborhood? Once you get
going, you're pretty funny!

Slow down and think, Brent.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Doc O'Leary]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Brent P) wrote:

> upgrade my equipement? WTF are you babbling about? Both my car and my
> bicycle exceed the requirements.

What requirements? Legal requirements might be a baseline, but if
you're *****ing about not being able to see other cyclists and/or
pedestrians then you clearly need something more.

> When you are bringing up the 'cars kill people, bikes don't' argument
> it's presented to say, don't worry about those red light running
> bicyclists, they won't hurt anyone.

When did *I* ever say a bike couldn't kill? When did I ever say running
a red light isn't worrisome? You have some serious reading
comprehension issues.

> >> > If anything, cyclists learn the rolling stop from all the
> >> > cars.
>
> >> Um no. It's called conservation of energy and conservation of momentum.
>
> > I don't understand what that has to do with refuting my point.
>
> You said they learned it from drivers. I am saying it's part of normal
> everyday physics and is not a behavior learned from anyone else. Most
> people figure it out for themselves.

Just because it is "everyday physics" has nothing to do with learning
the rules of the road. As I stated, but you so neatly clipped, car
drivers aren't burdened by the physics of accelerating their massive
vehicles, so they should have learned to stop all the time. We see
mommy and daddy doing it so much that, by the time we get bikes, we do
it too, with the slight added bonus that we get less tired.

> > In fact, Mr. Physics, please support your interest in conservation by
> > actually working out at what speeds a 4000lb car rolling a stop sign has
> > the same kinetic energy and momentum as a 200lb cyclist just blowing
> > through a stop at 15mph.
>
> A car driver could say that it is ok for him to run stop signs because a
> 40,000lb semi will cause more damage in a crash. It's a silly argument.

So, what, unwilling to do a little simple math? It's particularly funny
that you're backpedaling from *your* argument that it's an issue of
physics. I'm quite willing to have the law changed to take into account
the kinetic energy or momentum of *any* vehicle that doesn't come to a
complete stop. I know that doesn't support your silly desire to blow
through stops in your car, but it's certainly more fair than your
misguided notion that bikes are the scourge of road physics.

--
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com,
heapnode.com, localhost, ntli.net, teranews.com, vif.com, x-privat.org

 

[[email protected]]

On Mar 1, 8:08 pm, [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
> In article <87a75f5f-b334-4c2d-9ed4-f0f7633d8...@h25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
> >> ><sigh> You've missed the most important distinction. Here it is
> >> > again: Bicyclists almost exclusively harm only themselves, in the rare
> >> > cases they cause any harm at all. Motorists harm others, by the tens
> >> > of thousands per year in the US. And society is, very logically, much
> >> > more concerned about harm a person imposes on others.
>
> > Again, the rest of even our car-crazy American society understands
> > this perfectly, and thus imposes more restrictions on motorists than
> > cyclists. It takes an extremely car-crazy motorhead to fail to
> > understand these facts.
>
> What is this babble supposed to be frank? An argument for bicyclists not
> needing to follow the rules of the road?

Wow. I've specifically explained roughly a dozen times in this thread
that I _do_ want cyclists to follow the rules of the road. How is it
that you forget? How confused can you be?

> > Brent, which do you want to talk about? Rates? Fine. Your argument
> > is even weaker than talking about total numbers. Cyclist-caused
> > fatalities are vanishingly rare. If divided by cycling miles, the
> > result would be infinitesmal.
>
> Cyclist caused fatalities? I see you have a very warped view. I guess you
> don't count a bicyclist running a red signal and getting killed as
> cyclist caused? It's cyclist caused.

Wow! Read the top paragraph once again. Read it slowly, out loud.
Read it three times. And take notes. Perhaps _then_ you'll retain it
long enough to generate coherent thought.

Here's the kernel, yet again: "Society is, very logically, much more
concerned about harm a person imposes on others."

If you kill yourself by eating into gross obesity, doing drugs, bungee
jumping using a rubber band, driving your car sideways off a canyon
curve, or riding your bike through a red light into a busy four-lane,
that's one thing. It's your own stupidity.

If you kill others by driving your car through a crowded pedestrian
crosswalk, or ignoring a red light, or driving too fast for
conditions, that's another thing entirely.

Cyclists almost never kill anyone else but themselves. Motorists kill
40,000 "others" every year. If you can't understand the distinction,
you're not worth further communication.

Likewise, if you can't retain what's been said for a span of five or
six posts, you're not worth further communication.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Stephen Harding]

Brent P wrote:
> In article <ec26d7fb-850a-43d7-9088-a5526f3c6ef2@p73g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>If I do that, then find I'm looking at a radar gun, will the patrolman
>>accept my excuse that I had to speed way up to save the tailgater a
>>few seconds?
>
> When I am affraid of the revenuers I don't pass to go a couple mph
> faster. You're so anti-speed anyway, why don't you just drive slower and
> stay in the right lane?

First, I don't feel the need to answer to someone's impatience by
accelerating to higher speed than I want to go just so that person
astern of me won't be inconvenienced.

As long as I'm doing the speed limit or beyond, the guy astern will
just have to wait and all the horn blowing and flashing of lights
(and wailing and gnashing of teeth) isn't gonna get him by me any
faster. He can (and that ilk probably will) flip me off as he passes.

But I'm finding your suggestion above becoming more and more useful.

Here in MA (and other high volume interstate states), people largely
park themselves in the left lane, often not going any faster than
those in the middle or right lanes. They're afraid (I presume) of
being "stranded" in a rightward lane going "too slow", so they just
park themselves in the left (passing) lane instead, bullying the
person ahead of them to move on, while ignoring the person behind
them doing the same).

I found I can do 62-65 mph with cruise control set in the right
lane and rarely have to be concerned with coasting, resume, on, off
changes to the control. *Everyone* is passing me and I experience
less stress in dealing with the idiots playing speed games.

The only problems with the right lane are exit and in particular,
entry ramps that will have traffic temporarily going slower.


SMH

 

[[email protected]]

On Mar 1, 8:14 pm, [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
> In article <ec26d7fb-850a-43d7-9088-a5526f3c6...@p73g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 1, 3:36 pm, [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>
> >> Try passing properly. I never have that happen to me and here's why... I
> >> pass and get it over with. Especially with a truck. Sitting along side a
> >> truck passing it with a tiny speed differential is dangerous.
>
> > So, to describe something that's happened to me countless times:
>
> > Truck in the right lane going less than the speed limit. I see this
> > from far back. At the appropriate time, I signal and move to the left
> > lane. I'm on cruise control.
>
> > In some cases, there has been another motorist in front of me, going
> > more slowly than I, but still passing the truck. In other cases, it
> > was clear in front, but (again) I'm on cruise.
>
> > Now a very fast driver, typically in either an SUV or a large pickup,
> > comes up from way behind. He doesn't bother to slow until he's right
> > behind me, and he remains right behind me, usually about ten feet
> > back. We're doing perhaps 65 mph.
> > If there is a driver in front of me, what am I supposed to do?
>
> The guy in front of you and you are micro passing.

So "micro passing" is defined as passing more slowly than the racer-
boy behind me likes, eh? And you state that categorically, with no
knowledge of the relative speeds of the vehicles involved - except, of
course, that I've stated the impatient driver was "very fast."

By your standards, anyone going less than the "very fast" driver is in
error. Or distilled: Speed, dammit! Or Brent will complain!

> Given your
> description even if there was no one in front of you, you'd be doing just
> about the same thing. You both should turn off the cruise control and
> pass properly. Do it and get it done with.

Another way I should change my legal behavior, and start breaking the
law by speeding, to give yet more privilege to yet another impatient
motorist?

You really are a spoiled brat behind the wheel.

You need to learn to just obey the laws, and be satisfied when others
do the same.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[[email protected]]

On Mar 1, 9:09 pm, [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Tom Sherman wrote:
> >>
> > Well, if the truck is driving 55 mph in the middle or right lane, the
> > person passing the truck is driving 65 or 70 mph, and you were driving
> > 85 or 90 mph, you could be well back when they started to pass the truck
> > at a reasonable rate and still catch up to them.
>
> I don't know where trucks actually go 55mph...

Up hills.

(Sheesh.)

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Jym Dyer]

=x= But it sure wasn't this one.
<_Jym_>

 

[Matthew T. Russotto]

In article <a95dcebd-680e-4bed-b531-17e0c30dc2c8@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Feb 29, 9:25 pm, [email protected] (Matthew T. Russotto)
>wrote:
>>
>>
>> It is not my burden as a driver to ensure that pedestrians and cyclists are
>> visible, beyond having my own headlights operational; if they care to
>> travel on a road without their own lighting and/or reflectors, to the
>> extent that they are not visible to me until it is too late to avoid a
>> collision, it is because they shirked their own duties.
>
>When I'm walking, it's my _duty_ to kowtow to drivers by carrying a
>light or reflector?

Hey, if you don't want to do it, don't do it; there's no law requiring
it. But if, while wearing your dark, nonreflective clothing at
night, walking down a traffic lane, a driver doesn't see
you and runs you over, don't expect that your family will get much of
a settlement.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

 

[Matthew T. Russotto]

In article <09778de6-164a-42c8-9556-3e5446d3d61c@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Except that I'm not asking for any special privilege to run red
>lights. Nor to bike at night without lights. In fact, I'm not asking
>for privilege to violate any rule of the road, nor to change them to
>suit my preferences. I do just fine as is.

Don't be disingenuous; by your own testimony you work to reduce speed
limits and add traffic-impeding devices.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

 

[Tom Sherman]

Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
> In article <a95dcebd-680e-4bed-b531-17e0c30dc2c8@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Feb 29, 9:25 pm, [email protected] (Matthew T. Russotto)
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> It is not my burden as a driver to ensure that pedestrians and cyclists are
>>> visible, beyond having my own headlights operational; if they care to
>>> travel on a road without their own lighting and/or reflectors, to the
>>> extent that they are not visible to me until it is too late to avoid a
>>> collision, it is because they shirked their own duties.
>> When I'm walking, it's my _duty_ to kowtow to drivers by carrying a
>> light or reflector?
>
> Hey, if you don't want to do it, don't do it; there's no law requiring
> it. But if, while wearing your dark, nonreflective clothing at
> night, walking down a traffic lane, a driver doesn't see
> you and runs you over, don't expect that your family will get much of
> a settlement.
>
Yep, juries are mostly composed of selfish cagers.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

 

[Bill Sornson]

Jym Dyer wrote (in full):

> =x= But it sure wasn't this one.
> <_Jym_>

Got THAT right! LOL

 

[Tom Sherman]

Brent P? wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Tom Sherman wrote:
>
>>> I don't know where trucks actually go 55mph, but anyway... I just don't
>>> have anyone come out of nowhere up on to my bumper when I move out to
>>> pass. Sometimes it happens when I am cruising over to the right, but
>>> generally those folks are doing over 100mph.
>
>> Well, the large trucks often do not move faster than that due to traffic.
>
> Only when no one else is IME.
>
Well, in urban traffic the trucks generally move more slowly than the
cars, due to slow acceleration.

>>>> Well, I have found that being aggressively tailgated in the right lane
>>>> is a daily occurrence.
>>> I've had semi's a few feet off my bumper in the right lane. They don't
>>> flash however until after I've slowed because of their tailgating. And I
>>> can only think of one that flashed. Most use the airhorn or get even
>>> closer.
>
>> I have found plenty of people in smaller vehicles do the same thing -
>> many of them with HID lights (which generally indicates a more
>> expensive, newer vehicle).
>
> IME Tailgating yes, flashing... rarely.
>
>>> I was going my chosen speed in the right most lane. The question is, why
>>> were they in the middle and left lanes if they weren't passing anyone.
>
>> Well, they are ignorant or badly behaved for driving slower than traffic
>> in the middle and/or left lanes, but that does not excuse passing them
>> on the right.
>
> Excuse? Why does it have to be excused? It's not illegal and no way am I
> going to give some LLB control freak the power to sit in the left lane
> and force everyone else to go his chosen speed.
>
Illegal and wrong are two different things. Passing on the right is poor
behavior, and if the legislature had some sense in the matter, it would
be a moving violation (as would being a "left lane bandit"). Neither
behavior would be tolerated in a civilized country.

>>>> Yes, I have driven quite a bit in Chicagoland, and it is not unusual to
>>>> start to pass a truck on the left, and to be blocked from completing the
>>>> pass by a vehicle ahead. When this occurs it should be obvious to any
>>>> driver following me what is happening, so it is ridiculous for them to
>>>> aggressively tailgate in that instance. But yet it frequently happens.
>
>>> And I let them have my spot. Then I find a way around on the right and
>>> leave the asshat stuck there.
>
>> Passing on the right again?
>
> Perfectly legal under IL law. Again why do you want to empower LLBs? Are
> you one?
>
No, I spend as little time in the left lane as possible. But I will not
pass on the right, even if some jerk is following me at a distance of 5
feet.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

 

[Matthew T. Russotto]

In article <[email protected]>,
Nate Nagel <[email protected]> wrote:
>Tom Sherman wrote:
>> Doug Smith W9WI wrote:
>>
>>> [...]
>>> Just try driving from Clarksville to Nashville at anything less than 10
>>> over the limit. Either you'll be continuously slowing down (for slow
>>> semis) and speeding back up, or you'll have a**holes riding two feet off
>>> your tail and cutting through non-existent gaps to get in front as you
>>> try
>>> to pass the semis. [...]
>>
>> That is when you take as long as possible to pass the truck.
>>
>
>That is when you should lose your driver's license.

Or better, the trucker forgets you're there and moves on over.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.