Saw an intelligent bicyclist today

  • Thread starter Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
  • Start date



T

Tom Sherman

Guest
Brent P wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Tom Sherman wrote:
>
>>> Well, then, the guy in *front* of you is an asshole. You should flash
>>> to pass to let him know that he's holding up the whole passing process.
>>>

>> And where is the justification for the person behind me to follow too
>> closely in that situation?

>
> There generally isn't. But you should be doing something to correct the
> problem.
>

Such as what? Committing the equally bad offense of passing on the
right? Should I drive off onto the left-hand shoulder or into the median
to let the person behind by, so he/she can tailgate the slow person in
the left lane?

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

Tom Sherman

Guest
Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
> 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.


That would also take out the impatient bully behind me - that might be YOU!

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

Matthew T. Russotto

Guest
In article <[email protected]m>,
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>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?


How many mid-block stop signs do you think an average cyclist will
stop for?

>Cyclists almost never kill anyone else but themselves. Motorists kill
>40,000 "others" every year.


Liar. The majority of those killed are motorists.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
 
N

Nate Nagel

Guest
[email protected] wrote:
> On Mar 1, 7:32 pm, [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]m>, [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
>


I feel more at risk of having my car dented by my local cyclists than I
do by other motorists, and that's saying a lot because the drivers
around here suck.

nate

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

Nate Nagel

Guest
Doc O'Leary wrote:
> 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?


Because I don't know them and they're irresponsible. Duh.

> If life
> has so little value to you, do you also support summary execution of
> drivers found to be at fault in a crash?


I support strong penalties for vehicular manslaughter or homicide where
appropriate.

nate



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

Nate Nagel

Guest
Doc O'Leary wrote:
> 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.
>


If I didn't have a Real Job(tm) to go to, I'd do it, and wager money on
it. I'm sure I'm right.

nate

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

Tom Keats

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

>> 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
>>

>
> I feel more at risk of having my car dented by my local cyclists than I
> do by other motorists, and that's saying a lot because the drivers
> around here suck.


Your local cyclists are probably also some of your
local drivers. Same attitudes, just a different
medium (vehicle type) with which to express them.

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

Brent P

Guest
In article <[email protected]m>, [email protected] wrote:
> On Mar 1, 7:32 pm, [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]m>, [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, stop being an asshole. I didn't say it was a horror story,
although my grandmother was rather concerned about the kid. Anyway, it
was to point out the fact that bicycles can do a lot more damage to car
than you think they can.

As far as car worship... it's a Ford Tempo (a low optioned one at that) for
crying out loud.... do you feel stupid now? I hope so.
 
B

Brent P

Guest
In article <[email protected]m>, [email protected] wrote:
> On Mar 1, 7:36 pm, [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]m>, [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.


I want safer conditions for my bicycling and my driving. How is that a
special privilege?
 
B

Brent P

Guest
In article <[email protected]>, Stephen Harding wrote:
> 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?


You are willing to trust the individual in one instance but not another.

><sigh>


> OK, so you're laissez faire about traffic control.


No. I am very much for strict right of way rules. Nice strawman attempt
however.
 
B

Brent P

Guest
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:

> 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.


You are spewing the same **** about motorist privilege and that
bicyclists don't hurt anyone to excuse bicycle riders ignoring right of
way rules. Just because he's stronger about it than you makes no
difference, it's the same ****.

>> > 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.


I haven't followed the bicycle news groups for years frank. I got sick
you and the other assholes, and yes, I probably did complain about it,
but I believe I stopped following the bicycle newsgroups last century so
you'll have to go digging. It's always been my stance on speed control
stop signs, they are more annoying on bicycle.

My car doesn't get tired. I do. After a long hard ride it's a pain to
stop and then punch back up to 20+mph every few hundred feet.

>> > 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.


Well, maybe when one of them dies because of the issue ambulances have
with speed humps their thoughts will change.

>> > 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!


Oh, it's not a real town then... it has no businesses near by... I see. I
guess I am spoiled by the walking nature of much of the chicago area
where the businesses are located on the outside of the residential
areas so one can walk out to the businesses. I'm sorry you live in such a
horrid area where the businesses are miles from the homes. Sorry, I just
assumed they were within walking distance of the residences... given your
hate of the automobile I just figured you lived in such a place where you
could walk to stores, banks, etc. My mistake.

> Slow down and think, Brent.


I dunno... I can walk to stores from both homes I have.....
 
B

Brent P

Guest
In article <[email protected]et>, Doc O'Leary wrote:
> 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 bitching about not being able to see other cyclists and/or
> pedestrians then you clearly need something more.


Oh, you're being a usenet assclown... I wasn't bitching about seeing
properly lit bicyclists or peds of any kind.

>> 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.


This whole thread is apparently a bunch of militant bicyclists (and I
thought I was a militant bicyclist, guess I was wrong) who are defending
all sorts of poor bicycle riding with excuses.

I'll know the bicycle newsgroups have fallen when you people start
defending on and off sidewalk riding.

>> >> 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.


You stated they learned the rolling stop from car drivers.... *sigh* pick
something and stick with it.

> 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.


I guess you've never driven a manual transmission car or in snow. Take a
car with RWD and a front mounted engine. Put 3 inches of snow on the
ground. Now come to complete stop and compare that to just barely rolling
with regards to getting going again.


>> > 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 never made any such argument. You must be entirely daft. I stated that
the 'rolling stop' is something that doesn't have to be learned from
another person, it's natural. That's not a physics argument. DUh.

> 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.


You're just being an idiot, probably on purpose. I have no energy for
this stupidity of yours.
 
T

Tom Keats

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

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

>
> Frank, stop being an asshole. I didn't say it was a horror story,
> although my grandmother was rather concerned about the kid. Anyway, it
> was to point out the fact that bicycles can do a lot more damage to car
> than you think they can.


So can a well-hurled can of Campbell's cream-of-whatever soup.

Yeah, your precious cars are so fragile and delicate and
lightweight. Eggshells. How dare pedestrians allow themselves
to get hit by you and ruin your windshield, and get blood all
over your monocoque car bodies? You drivers are so vulnerable,
and the rest of us street/road users must be beholden to yez,
'cuz we dare not damage your paint.
Poor, poor, pitiful you.

Drivers can hit all kinds of stuff, and blame the stuff they
hit for the damage they suffer. 'Specially when claiming
for insurance (if the damage exceeds their deductible.)

Not that that ever happens.

Heh.

I'm so glad I'm not one of you.


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

Brent P

Guest
In article <[email protected]m>, [email protected] wrote:
> On Mar 1, 8:08 pm, [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]m>, [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?


Your words don't match Frank. You say you want bicyclists to follow the
rules of the road and then you go babbling on and on about why it doesn't
matter if they follow the rules of the road. Which is it Frank? You sound
like the woman who wants a nice guy but then falls for a jerk all the
time. You say you want bicyclists to follow the rules of the road and
then make excuses ('they won't kill anyone but themselves') for all the
jerks on two wheels that don't.

>> > 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.


I understand it. You have a warped idea of 'cyclist caused'.

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


This society? Not really. This sceity is concerned about money and
power. If you have money and power you can harm anyone you want for the
most part.

> 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.


This society is filled with laws to protect people from themselves. I
think you missed the last few decades.

> 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.


'it's ok to be a jerk on a bicycle because you'll only kill yourself and
that's not cyclist caused'

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


Can't take what you dish out Frank? Figured as much. And hell I only gave
you a little of what you've been spewing at me and others.
 
B

Brent P

Guest
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
> On Mar 1, 8:14 pm, [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]m>, [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?


It's defined as passing with a very small speed diferentional. For
instance, two speed governed semis. One's governor is at 65.5mph and the
other's is at 67.3mph. The one that can go 67.3 mph pulls out to pass the
slower one. That's micro passing. That's what your cruise control passes
are.

<Frank's usual insulting boy-racer language snipped>

The funny thing about drivers like you've described yourself to be is
they get really ****** off if someone forces them out of their cruise
control.

>> 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?


Another impatient motorist... interesting choice of words. Yes, you are
an impatient motorist Frank. You decide that you cannot wait to pass and
pull your cruise control ass out in front of someone else who was just
cruising along at his chosen speed and force them to slow down because
you are impaitent and can't wait or deactivate your cruise control.

I get it now, because of your own impatience, you assume that everyone
driving faster than you is more impatient. That everyone who uses the
flash to pass to tell you to stop being an asshole holding up traffic
must be 'impatient'. That's unlikely the case.

> You really are a spoiled brat behind the wheel.


That would be yourself. Your brattish and childish 'but I'm doing the
speed limit' cry. You're also spoiled and used to getting your way over
others so how dare they not like jamming on the brakes when you cut over
and begin your cruise control pass.

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


I obey them far more than you. Plus I understand that driving the speed
limit or less in the left most lane of limited access highway in the USA
is considered assholish. But you still seem to think that the laws come
from the devine, from deities on earth and must be obeyed without
question.
 
B

Brent P

Guest
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
> 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.)


Not any of the hills around here.
 
B

Brent P

Guest
In article <[email protected]>, Tom Sherman wrote:
> 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.


More slowly yes, 55mph or slower... when everyone else is. Then again I
live in an area where even the semis occasionally use the shoulder as a
passing lane.

>>> 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.


If the legislature cared about proper traffic flow it would have the keep
right except to pass law even stronger and ENFORCED at least as much as
'speeding'. Instead what you are telling me, is that when I am driving
along at my chosen speed in the right most lane, that I should brake and
slow down because I catch up to some asshat driving slower in one of the
lanes to my left? That is rather assinine and would only be endorced by
someone trying to make a usenet score or a complete passing lane blocking
control freak asshole. Which one are you?

Do you really want to empower someone going much slower than you want to
go blocking the whole road up legally by just choosing the left lane?

>>> 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.


So when you are cruising along minding your own buisness and come across
some asshat LLBing, blocking the left lane, or any lane to your left, you
just brake or otherwise slow down so you won't pass him? Holy ****... do
you know what sort of chaos you are part of the cause of behind you?

You're enabling the left lane blocker to create a moving road block.
Vehicles clumping up behind you.... even people going no faster than you
are getting caught in the clump. (remember, you slowed down not to pass
the LLB) No wonder you get flashed in the right lane. You're a total
asshole to people behind you. Someone who was happy to stay behind you
going the same speed you were going will get ****** off when you find
someone in the left lane to match speeds with and block up the road. He's
going to see that move as something done on purpose and totally assholish.
 
B

Brent P

Guest
In article <[email protected]>, Tom Sherman wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, Tom Sherman wrote:
>>
>>>> Well, then, the guy in *front* of you is an asshole. You should flash
>>>> to pass to let him know that he's holding up the whole passing process.
>>>>
>>> And where is the justification for the person behind me to follow too
>>> closely in that situation?

>>
>> There generally isn't. But you should be doing something to correct the
>> problem.
>>

> Such as what? Committing the equally bad offense of passing on the
> right?


Passing on the right 'equally bad'? Drive much in the USA?

> Should I drive off onto the left-hand shoulder or into the median
> to let the person behind by, so he/she can tailgate the slow person in
> the left lane?


You can start by trying to wake up the asshole in front of you with your
car's flash-to-pass feature.

Considering that you apparently don't find LLBing assholish and aren't
willing to pass said LLBs on the right, I can only conclude you are a
passive aggressive asshole who wishes to bottle up the road and control
everyone else's speed. The LLB and a little twisted logic about the
horrors of 'passing on the right' and in your own mind you are able to
accomplish the goal of controling the speed of the road and not see
yourself as the asshole.
 
T

Tom Keats

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Brent P) writes:
> In article <[email protected]>, Stephen Harding wrote:
>> 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?

>
> You are willing to trust the individual in one instance but not another.
>
>><sigh>

>
>> OK, so you're laissez faire about traffic control.

>
> No. I am very much for strict right of way rules. Nice strawman attempt
> however.


Brent, you strike me as a reasonable, sociable, likeable
and respectable guy,

and so does Stephen.

Just tell me you don't wanna step on people's toes.
Maybe occasionally go a li'l beyond formal courtesy
and go into being friendly-like to others. /Like/
people. I know you already do. We all do.

There's too much gripin' about each other, and not
enough acknowledging of each other.

I'm just a communistically-home-educated, non-observant
guy who has learned the value of getting together with
human society. I celebrate the great things people can
do together & co-operatively & empathically.

Stephen seems to be somewhat Conservative, but he also
celebrates the great things people can do together &
co-operatively & empathically.

So do you.

I guess we're all on the same page, more or less.

We could put that to work. As long as we put
stoopid idealoguery behind us, and replace it
with true conversation & interchange of thoughts.

Whadda concept!


cheers,
Tom

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

Zoot Katz

Guest
On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 12:00:10 -0800, Jym Dyer <[email protected]> wrote:

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


Saturday I witnessed amazingly docile driver behaviour. Only one horn
blast from a bus warning a yokel about to pull in front of it. That
was for at least eight minutes while a busted scud entirely blocked
the left-turn lane at a busy intersection with lots of people behind
it wanting to turn left.

Can you imagine the cacophony if one bicyclist tied up traffic for
that long? They'd possibly even be assaulted if they farted around
with their chain through maybe fifteen signal sequences before
clearing the lane. I stopped counting after six figuring a cyclist
would have been pureed by then.

I'm not making this up. I have 3 witnesses who were also amazed by
the civility of it all. One is a Teamster* and there was his buddy
looking to buy a cheap car to replace the last one. Myself and
another <r.b.m> poster** couldn't help but cracking on alternate
definitions of "car hunting" - bag limits, seasons, armament, etc.

How many <r.a.d> posters remember those daily delays, inconveniences
and annoyances before complaining about a cyclist delaying or
inconveniencing them for significantly _less_ time? Any?

The annoyance factor seems to be greater though so these yapping
brats harp on that. Their vehement hostility and palpable envy can be
clearly read, or in most cases deciphered from the broken English, in
the comment section of any media featuring transportation articles
with bicycles.
It probably has a lot to do with their unresolved childhood issues.

* He's also the most aggressive, raging asshole driver I've ever had
the horror of riding with. Thankfully he doesn't do Usenet. It
already has enough jerks.

** I was glad to see for relief of a burden carried since last year.
--
zk
 

Similar threads

H
Replies
6
Views
1K
C
S
Replies
15
Views
256
Road Cycling
Leo Lichtman
L