Saw an intelligent bicyclist today

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



B

Brent P

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


Said can-o-soup would also f'up my bicycle.

> 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.


*yawn* don't you get tired of this **** you spew? really... is that all
you got? This demonizing and insulting language. It's really old and
stale. Get a real argument to make.
 
Z

Zoot Katz

Guest
On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 21:45:33 -0600,
[email protected] (Brent P) wrote:

>> 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.
>

From my home to a shopping area with many services it's a distance of
one mile. Restaurants, pizza, organic grocer, barber, cobbler, deli,
less than a half mile. Countless times I've seen people from my block
shopping and carrying home, in their cars, what I can carry easily on
my bike - say three bags of groceries. I've even done it on crutches.
They're mostly younger than me but could stand to be in better shape.
When we leave and arrive at the same times I have to smile.
--
zk
 
S

Stephen Harding

Guest
Brent P wrote:
> 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.


And apparently unregulated speed, which is a form of
traffic control.

Get your story straight.


SMH
 
B

Brent P

Guest
In article <rZTyj.3487$W%[email protected]>, Stephen Harding wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> 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.

>
> And apparently unregulated speed, which is a form of
> traffic control.


I want speed limits set properly and lane discipline to be the priority.
Nothing 'unregulated' about it. The condition we have today is chaos
compared to what I propose. What I propose is orderly and safe limited
access highways unlike today's cluster f*ck of drivers scatttered
*****-nilly all over the road in different lanes.

Now maybe you've got your words screwed up and think that speed
desrestriction on limited access highways is the same as unregulated. It's
not.

> Get your story straight.


I have, you just fail to understand it not knowing any background
material and quite obviously being conditioned to having the government
make decisions for you.
 
S

Stephen Harding

Guest
Tom Keats wrote:

> 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.


Being [politically] conservative in r.b.m. is a rarity. There
ain't many of us there.

> 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!


Well the problem is we're actually not all on the same page,
although your call for basic conversation and interchange of
thoughts is really what NGs are all about.

Many decry cross-posted threads when those groups have
inherent antagonisms towards one another; both regard the
other as a form of mindless road danger.

It still can be an interesting and informative exchange up
to a point. I learned a bit about situations where changing
speed limits doesn't always result in the expected increase
or decrease in road accidents.

I learned about the 'U' shaped speed-accident curve where
people going under and over median traffic speed are more
likely to cause or be involved in accidents.

I learned about "micro-passing", although I can't really say
what is significant about it other than it really frosts
people who don't believe in speed limits when they encounter
it.

But I have also had confirmed my beliefs that many basically
good people do indeed become jerks once behind the wheel of
their motor vehicle. The old saying about the "nut behind
the wheel" seems confirmed.

Nothing to get too bent out of shape over. Hey, it's only
a NG (or two).


SMH
 
E

Ed Pirrero

Guest
On Feb 29, 12:56 pm, [email protected] (Brent P)
wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > I would suggest that most bike trips are loops.  You start at home,
> > then end there.  Mountain biking can be destination biking too, if by
> > destination you mean a lake or a waterfall or some such.  But you
> > still get to ride back to the car.  And I agree, it's nice to have a
> > loop, rather than an out-and-back.

>
> What I mean by no destination is a loop set up inside a forest preserve
> or park that is like doing laps on race track. It gets old fast. The
> concept is to drive the bike there, ride a few laps, drive home. It beats
> a treadmill, but that's about it.


Ah, I see.

I meant a loop as in a ten to twenty mile loop where you don't see the
same terrain twice. Out west here we could ride loops like that a
bunch and never have to go on the same loop twice, if that suited our
fancy.

Yes, I could imagine that a one to five mile loop would get seriously
boring.

E.P.
 
E

Ed Pirrero

Guest
On Feb 29, 3:05 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Feb 29, 12:40 pm, Ed Pirrero <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 28, 5:41 pm, [email protected] wrote:

>
> > > On Feb 28, 7:49 pm, Ed Pirrero <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> > > > On Feb 28, 4:36 pm, [email protected] wrote:

>
> > > > > On Feb 28, 5:35 pm, "Leo Lichtman" <[email protected]>
> > > > > wrote:

>
> > > > > But let's get practical, Leo.  The fact is, the very normal generator
> > > > > headlamp, taillamp, LED blinky, and reflectors I use on my bike ....

>
> > > > You consider this normal, huh?

>
> > > I'm sorry, Ed.  I meant "normal" as in "equipment which satisfies the
> > > law, but does not greatly exceed the laws requirements."

>
> > Uhh, the word for that is "legal".  "Normal" has a different meaning.

>
> An aircraft landing light on a bicycle is probably legal - meaning,
> AFAIK there is no upper limit on lumen count for bikes.


That's not "normal", either. No matter how you dance and posture,
your intent was quite clear.

Pretending you meant something else after the fact fools exactly
nobody.

But your condescension is hilarious in it's irony.

E.P.
 
On Mar 2, 5:14 pm, [email protected] (Matthew T. Russotto)
wrote:
> In article <[email protected]m>,
>
> <[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.


In the case of drivers speeding through residential neighborhoods, I'm
simply asking that obedience to existing laws be effectively
enforced. If it takes speed humps to do it, that's fine by me.

- Frank Krygowski
 
B

Brent P

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

> Flash-to-pass is highway rudeness. It's not like someone coming on
> with high beams on at night who perhaps is simply unaware of the
> situation. A quite double flash provides a gentle reminder.


What other standard features of cars do you find to be rude when used
according to their design and by law? You do realize that it is the law
in many states that a driver give way to faster traffic upon light or
audible signal?

For instance, on a two lane road in IL, you can use an audible signal to
indicate that you wish to pass.

(625 ILCS 5/11.703) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 11.703)
Sec. 11.703. Overtaking a vehicle on the left. The following rules
govern the overtaking and passing of vehicles proceeding in the same
direction, subject to those limitations, exceptions, and special rules
otherwise stated in this Chapter:

(a) The driver of a vehicle overtaking another
vehicle proceeding in the same direction shall pass to the left thereof
at a safe distance and shall not again drive to the right side of the
roadway until safely clear of the overtaken vehicle. In no event shall
such movement be made by driving off the pavement or the main traveled
portion of the roadway.
(b) Except when overtaking and passing on the right
is permitted, the driver of an overtaken vehicle shall give way to the
right in favor of the overtaking vehicle on audible signal and shall not
increase the speed of his vehicle until completely passed by the
overtaking vehicle.


So, is the law rude?


> Someone roaring up the passing lane (generally parked in the left
> lane BTW) flashing his headlights madly as he bears down on you
> rear bumper isn't displaying "driving etiquette" in my book. He's
> display rude, selfish behavior.


He just wants to drive his chosen speed and you are purposely blocking up
the road, yet he's 'rude and selfish'. Sorry, the rude and selfish person
is you.

> The bottom line in this driving situation is that *I am* passing a
> vehicle. *I am* driving the speed limit or a few mph above it. I
> *am not* parked out in the passing lane. *I am* blocking the flow
> of people who are going faster than I am (although probably not for
> long as there like people ahead of me who aren't going as fast as
> the person flashing their lights wants to be going), but I will
> swing into the right lane when I complete the pass.


Ahh... hiding behind the posted speed limit. Yes, the behavior we have
the NMSL to thank for. It's lasting contribution to the road.


From Mark Rask in "American Authobahn":

"...was becoming the mindset in the mid-to-late 1970s. A new kind of
self-righteous motorist began appearing in greater numbers on the
highways of the country. Convinced it was their duty to slow down other
drivers, these motorists moved from the right, slow lane into the left ,
passing lane of the highway.

<...>

Law enforcement and safety experts hailed this "improvement". These "good
drivers" were blocking the progress of speeders. What they failed to
consider was the growing trend of faster drivers weaving between the
slower ones, and the increased level of aggravation caused by these new,
artificially created traffic jams"
 
On Mar 2, 5:51 pm, [email protected] (Matthew T. Russotto)
wrote:
> 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?


Mid-block? Sounds like you're talking about some hypothetical stop
sign that's not at an intersection. Still, if you re-read my
paragraph more slowly, you'll see that I _do_ want cyclists to follow
the rules of the road. See? (Take notes!)

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

>
> Liar. The majority of those killed are motorists.


The majority of motorists killed in crashes _are_ killed by "other"
motorists.

- Frank Krygowski
 
D

Doc O'Leary

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

> Doc O'Leary wrote:
> >
> > 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.


And that's why you're so misguided. You see, I'm completely willing to
be wrong if the science contradicts my own observation bias. Your
unfounded certainty means you're clearly not fit to conduct a scientific
study. If you expect to sway intelligent people to your side of an
argument, you're better served by reality than willful ignorance.

--
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
 
On Mar 2, 6:26 pm, Nate Nagel <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> 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.


That statement is proof of the extreme fantasies a motorhead will
indulge in! It's absolutely ludicrous!

If you can prove me wrong, do it. Give me data about, say, the volume
of body shop work caused by bicyclists, versus caused by motorists.

- Frank Krygowski
 
B

Brent P

Guest
In article <[email protected]m>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> On Feb 29, 12:56 pm, [email protected] (Brent P)
> wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>> > I would suggest that most bike trips are loops.  You start at home,
>> > then end there.  Mountain biking can be destination biking too, if by
>> > destination you mean a lake or a waterfall or some such.  But you
>> > still get to ride back to the car.  And I agree, it's nice to have a
>> > loop, rather than an out-and-back.

>>
>> What I mean by no destination is a loop set up inside a forest preserve
>> or park that is like doing laps on race track. It gets old fast. The
>> concept is to drive the bike there, ride a few laps, drive home. It beats
>> a treadmill, but that's about it.

>
> Ah, I see.
>
> I meant a loop as in a ten to twenty mile loop where you don't see the
> same terrain twice. Out west here we could ride loops like that a
> bunch and never have to go on the same loop twice, if that suited our
> fancy.


That would be a good ride. There are some trails by stringing them
together or using the lakefront in chicago that can be 10-20 miles long,
but they don't loop back. That's why I take roads one way and trails the
other fairly often.

> Yes, I could imagine that a one to five mile loop would get seriously
> boring.


It does... except to do them faster and faster.... then people get upset.
 
On Mar 2, 10:33 pm, [email protected] (Brent P)
wrote:
> 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.


I'm discussing these points with a person who can't keep track of the
conversation. I admit, I feel I'm largely wasting my time... but
OTOH, others are probably reading and learning.

Let's review, Brent. The point was, motorists do MUCH more total
damage (medically or financially) than bicyclists ever do. The
difference is orders of magnitude. Your example of one dent in a
Tempo was a very silly attempt at counter-argument.

Try this, step by step: Visit the closest body shop. Ask which
repair cases were caused by other cars. Total the estimates. Then
ask the same about cases caused by bicycles.

Of course, there won't be any, so try another body shop. Repeat until
you find one dent actually caused by a bike.

NOW total the dollar values of repair estimates for car-caused dents,
and bike-caused dents.

If you like, repeat the exercise in hospital emergency rooms.

Does that make it clear? There is no logical way to pretend that cars
and bikes are equally dangerous, or cause equal damage.

(And BTW, such detailed instructions are necessary only for the very
bottom of the class.)

- Frank Krygowski
 
On Mar 3, 11:36 am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Mar 2, 6:26 pm, Nate Nagel <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > 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.

>
> That statement is proof of the extreme fantasies a motorhead will
> indulge in! It's absolutely ludicrous!
>
> If you can prove me wrong, do it. Give me data about, say, the volume
> of body shop work caused by bicyclists, versus caused by motorists.
>
> - Frank Krygowski


That wouldn't be a fair way of measuring. Much of the damage done to
cars by bikes is of the hit & run variety. It could be they kicked
the car and split, they just refused to exchange info, or a million
other circumstances. When your car is damaged by another car there is
usually insurance involved, accident reports filed, etc. If you hit
my *truck* (just playing with you Frank) with your car and damage a
panel, there's a fairly good chance I'll use some or all of the
insurance money to repair the truck. If a bicycle hits my truck, the
only way for it to be repaired on the offender's dime is if they stop
and give me their info willingly, if they're so injured they need
medical attention, or an officer happens to witness it and apprehend
the cyclist. Two of those three circumstances seem quite unlikely.
The exception, the cyclist being so injured they need medical
attention, is likely to somehow cause me a bunch of headache even if
they were at fault.
 
On Mar 2, 10:34 pm, [email protected] (Brent P)
wrote:
> In article <[email protected]m>, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
> > 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?


You haven't been asking for "safer." You've been consistently asking
for raised speed limits, for years now.

- Frank Krygowski
 
B

Brent P

Guest
In article <[email protected]m>, [email protected] wrote:
> On Mar 2, 10:33 pm, [email protected] (Brent P)
> wrote:
>> 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.

>
> I'm discussing these points with a person who can't keep track of the
> conversation. I admit, I feel I'm largely wasting my time... but
> OTOH, others are probably reading and learning.


I kept track of it just fine. But you keep jumping the track to be insulting.

> Let's review, Brent. The point was, motorists do MUCH more total
> damage (medically or financially) than bicyclists ever do. The
> difference is orders of magnitude. Your example of one dent in a
> Tempo was a very silly attempt at counter-argument.


I was pointing out that you're orders of magnitude off. Of course that
won't get you to admit your error. I could easily cause thousands of
dollars in damage to a motor vehicle from the saddle of a bicycle. In
fact, such methods are often expressed as self defense mechanisms for
bicyclists from the pointy stick on up.

> Try this, step by step: Visit the closest body shop. Ask which
> repair cases were caused by other cars. Total the estimates. Then
> ask the same about cases caused by bicycles.


The SUV that backed in to my mustang did almost as much damage as that
kid's bicycle did to the tempo.

> Of course, there won't be any, so try another body shop. Repeat until
> you find one dent actually caused by a bike.


The body shop won't know or care. Of course you have to find a car owner
willing to pay it out of pocket, which skews the survey, but you already
knew that, hence the rules you specified.

> NOW total the dollar values of repair estimates for car-caused dents,
> and bike-caused dents.


It was $900 to fix the dent in my mustang. The tempo's dent was worse.

> If you like, repeat the exercise in hospital emergency rooms.
>
> Does that make it clear? There is no logical way to pretend that cars
> and bikes are equally dangerous, or cause equal damage.
>
> (And BTW, such detailed instructions are necessary only for the very
> bottom of the class.)


I realize you hate the automobile and see it as a 'death machine'.
However that doesn't excuse poor behavior of bicycle riders. the only
reason you bring it up is to excuse the poor behavior of bicycle riders.
It's how you talk out of both sides of your mouth so to speak.
 
On Mar 2, 10:45 pm, [email protected] (Brent P)
wrote:
> 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.


Except for the detail that I am saying bicyclists should follow the
rules of the road! :)

Don't your attempts at "logic" ever embarrass you?

> I haven't followed the bicycle news groups for years frank.


Hmm. Maybe you _did_ get embarrassed by your attempts at "logic."

> >> > [about 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.

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


When that happens, feel free to strut in here with documentation. But
to date, I've never heard of a single such case. It's another racer-
boy, car-worshiping fantasy.

> >> 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..


The speed humps are (so far) in just one residential neighborhood.
There are no businesses in that neighborhood. The big shopping area
is about two miles away.

However, if you intend to avoid the entire township, let me know.
Maybe I should send a note to that local government, saying you won't
visit from out-of-state unless they rip out the devices that have made
the taxpaying constituents happy.

Golly, I hope they don't get too scared by your threat!

Say, would you consider mail-order buying? PLEASE??? It would be
cruel for you to trigger a depression! ;-)

- Frank Krygowski
 
On Mar 2, 10:57 pm, [email protected] (Brent P)
wrote:
>
>
> 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.


Citation? Show where I said "it doesn't matter if cyclists follow the
rules of the road."

Alternately, give up the racer-boy car-worship fantasies.

- Frank Krygowski
 
B

Brent P

Guest
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
> On Mar 2, 10:34 pm, [email protected] (Brent P)
> wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]m>, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>
>> > 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?

>
> You haven't been asking for "safer." You've been consistently asking
> for raised speed limits, for years now.


As I tried to explain to you with an example I am familiar with, the higher
85th percentile limits lead to safer roads with improved traffic flow. I
*PREFER* to ride the road with the highest speed limits of three choices
because it has the best traffic flow, its speed limit is the closest to
the 85th percentile of the three.

I choose the safest roads to ride when I have a choice or the detour
isn't too great, it doesn't mean it's the road with the lowest speed
limit.
 

Similar threads

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