Saw an intelligent bicyclist today

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



On Mar 2, 11:12 pm, [email protected] (Brent P)
wrote:
> 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:

>
>
> >> I don't know where trucks actually go 55mph...

>
> > Up hills.

>
> > (Sheesh.)

>
> Not any of the hills around here.


:) Well THAT clears things up! The hills in Chicago don't slow
trucks, therefore there are no hills anywhere that slow trucks!

I don't know why the highway departments around here wasted all the
money on those "7% grade" signs! They should have checked with racer-
boy!

- Frank Krygowski
 
On Mar 3, 12:10 am, Zoot Katz <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 12:00:10 -0800, Jym Dyer <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> 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? ...
>
> 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?


Excellent point. In fact, I'm quite sure that I've been delayed by
motorists while I've biked, far more than I've delayed motorists
because of my bicycling. Simplest example: One short green from a
busy commercial side street onto the main arterial. "Green" is
frequently followed by:

<snore... umph... come dimly awake...> Huh? Is it green?

Next car: "Hmm. Why did he start moving? Oh, is it green? Maybe I
should go too."

Next car: "Hey, sweety, I gotta go, so I can call Sam and tell him to
buy lettuce. I'll call you back right after I call Sam..."

Next car: "No need to hurry. I'm sure _I_ can make it through this
yellow light... say, why is that bicyclist behind me so impatient?"

And that doesn't even count the times that the sheer number of
motorists completely clogs all the infrastructure.

- Frank Krygowski
 
On Mar 3, 9:40 am, [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>
>
> 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 ...



Which _should_, by definition, mean racer-boys would refrain from
tailgating when someone is passing a truck.

Yes, even if that person isn't going as much over the speed limit as
the racer-boy would like to go.

- Frank Krygowski
 
B

Brent P

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


You hide behind that statement, so what? Doesn't change the fact you
bring out the same old **** and use it to excuse the illegally operating
bicyclists. I want bicyclists to obey the rules of the road but I don't
trot out the damage differentials and other **** in discussion about the
vehicle code.

I'll bring it up when someone suggests anti-cycling measures such as
liability insurance, excessive taxation, etc. That's where the argument
has merit. It has no merit in a rules of the road discussion. If you are
for bicyclists following the rules of the road, then it doesn't matter.
If you are looking to excuse bicyclists for not following the rules of
the road, well, then you bring it up.

> 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.


Geebus. have you ever googled ?

http://www.io.com/~bumper/ada0036.htm
http://speedbumps.50megs.com/Usatoday.htm
http://www.abd.org.uk/speed_humps.htm

somewhere there is a story of someone who had a spinal injury and the
abulance going over the speed hump made it much worse and forever or
killed the person... can't remember, but I probably linked to it in the
past.


>> >> 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.


Two miles away.... such a bicycling and ped unfriendly place you live.
Sounds like it was set up for the automobile. Sorry, I just assumed you'd
live somewhere like I am used to , where one can walk to the store. Hell,
the nearest walmart is less than two miles way... I've walked there a
good number of time.
 
B

Brent P

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


everytime you argue that the damage caused by cyclists can be neglected.
That it doesn't amount to anything signficiant. If they don't cause any
harm by violating the rules of the road as you argue, it doesn't matter
if they do or don't.

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


Its behavior like yours that I'd rather associate with drivers than
bicyclists. You don't see me calling you a POB, a critical masser, and
other such nonsense.
 
B

Brent P

Guest
In article <[email protected]m>, [email protected] wrote:
> On Mar 2, 11:12 pm, [email protected] (Brent P)
> wrote:
>> 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:

>>
>>
>> >> I don't know where trucks actually go 55mph...

>>
>> > Up hills.

>>
>> > (Sheesh.)

>>
>> Not any of the hills around here.

>
>:) Well THAT clears things up! The hills in Chicago don't slow
> trucks, therefore there are no hills anywhere that slow trucks!


Holy jump battman. I never said any such thing, but you know that.

> I don't know why the highway departments around here wasted all the
> money on those "7% grade" signs! They should have checked with racer-
> boy!


I dunno. The times I've driven through the hills and mountains on the way
to and from NC and WV I don't recall the trucks dropping to 55mph...
maybe my memory is off, that could be, but I think they kept it above
55mph for the most part. They certainly do through the hills of WI. Now
they do slow, but 55mph seems to be a floor speed. I suppose there are
some mountain roads out there where they slow to 45mph or something but
that is still the limit of their vehicles, I have rarely seen truckers
restrict themselves to 55mph.
 
D

Doc O'Leary

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

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


Then please restate your argument, because you seem to have changed it
from "unlighted wrong ways" to "everyday physics" to who knows what. If
you just hate other people, simply say so. Classic road rage like that
is nothing new, although you seem to be going to elaborate lengths to
justify it. Again, and concisely, what's your issue?

> 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.


Then you aren't reading the thread closely enough. All I've defended is
the reality of the road, which I maintain the law does not adequately
represent. Yes, the reality is that some people on bicycles don't
strictly obey the laws that are meant to cover cars, though they are
usually the laws that cars themselves often do not obey.

> >> >> 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.


I have. It's you who seemingly can't stay focussed long enough to
follow an argument through. My statement is entirely consistent with
the notion that we approach stop signs based on our general experience
of how vehicles approach stop signs, not based on some abstract notion
of physics that hardly matters to people who are burning dinosaurs to
move.

> > 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.


So, what, now you've switched your argument to "special dispensation"?
Why not give a cyclist, someone who actually serves as the engine to
their vehicle, some extra consideration, too? I'm going to guess that
you think your 0.001% scenario somehow justifies the other 99.999% of
incidents where cars roll stops. I'm going to guess you'd go so far as
to ***** about a cyclist, additionally exposed to the cold, rolling
through that same stop you seem willing to forgive the car for. Please
stop going to the effort of imagining fanciful edge conditions and deal
with everyday reality.

> >> > 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.


You are certainly strong in "DUh". Your argument was of conservation of
energy/momentum, which is definitely a physics argument. But since stop
signs don't spring up at intersections naturally (or maybe you think
they're some kind of flower? :), your position on that is irrelevant
unless you do the math and make it meaningful. So make up your mind:
either people, regardless of the vehicle, are supposed to be strictly
obeying the laws of road or they are supposed to be strictly obeying the
laws 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.

>
> You're just being an idiot, probably on purpose. I have no energy for
> this stupidity of yours.


Yes, it is so much easier to be dismissive when you can't support your
multiple specious arguments. You seem to belong to that special class
of people who use "stupid" to label things they're not capable of
understanding.

--
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
 
B

Brent P

Guest
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
> On Mar 3, 9:40 am, [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>>
>>
>> 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 ...

>
>
> Which _should_, by definition, mean racer-boys would refrain from
> tailgating when someone is passing a truck.



I think I have few hundred anti-tailgating posts out there by now.

> Yes, even if that person isn't going as much over the speed limit as
> the racer-boy would like to go.


I find it rather odd that with the application of simple courtsey that I
just don't have the kinds of problems with tailgaters you do.
 
On Mar 3, 11:18 am, Ed Pirrero <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> No matter how you dance and posture,
> your intent was quite clear.


My intent should have been quite clear, but obviously, a) it either
wasn't clear to you, or b) you're looking for any way to salvage your
ego.

If a person on a bike has lights that are acceptable by law, their
clothing color makes no practical difference.

Go back and read. Take notes. Ask for help. And if you still don't
understand, just give up. You're not up to this.

- Frank Krygowski
 
B

Brent P

Guest
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
> On Mar 3, 10:04 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Mar 3, 9:50 am, Stephen Harding <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > "I wanna go faaaster. Get outta my waaay! I'm commin through!
>> > <honk><honk><light_flash><light_flash>"

>>
>> Flash-to-pass is NOT "get outta my way", it's "excuse me,
>> please move to the right". Have you ever been walking down a sidewalk
>> and had a group of people blocking the whole thing, engrossed in their
>> conversation or whathaveyou? In that situation, what would you do? I
>> would say "excuse me", as I have in the past. That's the exact same
>> thing as flash-to-pass.

>
> The situation we've all experienced and are complaining about is not a
> simple flash-to-pass. Instead, it's this:
>
> Approach from behind with at least 10 mph speed differential;
>
> Maintain that approach speed until within about ten feet of the car in
> front;
>
> Begin flashing lights repeatedly, even though the car in front is
> passing a truck at or slightly above the speed limit, or even though
> the car in front is prevented from completing passing by yet another
> car.


I get it now.... Frank and the rest of them don't even notice there is
someone behind them until that guy has been blocked for minutes and has a
reached a significant frustration level and/or has escalated his attempts
to wake them from their mindless stupor.

If you actually saw them 'maintain speed until 10 feet off your bumper',
that's behavior consistant with someone sliding in front of them going
much slower. There is an expectation when you move in front of them, to
accelerate. That's why he didn't brake, he was expecting you to
accelerate. But you didn't. MFFY.
 
P

Paul M. Hobson

Guest

> [email protected] wrote:
>> Of course, that contained a subtle shift of subject, since a bent bike
>> is not the same as a damaged car - and Nate was terrified of damaging
>> his car, not hurting anyone else.


Brent P wrote:
> A car can't bend a bike that was upright with someone riding it without some
> sort of damage to the car. You might consider the level of damage
> trivial, but should someone take a screw driver and do the same kind of
> damage to your nicest bicycle I doubt you'd shrug it off.


The Suburban that hit and ran away from me had one dent its hood (my
wrist) and one in its bumper (my shin). My frame, was unrideable.
Cosmetic damage to one vehicle is nothing comparing to structurally
ruining another. And no, I don't care that fixing cosmetic damage to
certain vehicles is so expensive. One should choose something more
economical if he/she don't like the associated costs.

\\paul
--
Paul M. Hobson
..:change the f to ph to reply:.
 
B

Brent P

Guest
In article <[email protected]>, Paul M. Hobson wrote:
>
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> Of course, that contained a subtle shift of subject, since a bent bike
>>> is not the same as a damaged car - and Nate was terrified of damaging
>>> his car, not hurting anyone else.

>
> Brent P wrote:
>> A car can't bend a bike that was upright with someone riding it without some
>> sort of damage to the car. You might consider the level of damage
>> trivial, but should someone take a screw driver and do the same kind of
>> damage to your nicest bicycle I doubt you'd shrug it off.

>
> The Suburban that hit and ran away from me had one dent its hood (my
> wrist) and one in its bumper (my shin). My frame, was unrideable.


So you agree with me.

> Cosmetic damage to one vehicle is nothing comparing to structurally
> ruining another.


Again, I say that it might be called trivial by some.

> And no, I don't care that fixing cosmetic damage to
> certain vehicles is so expensive. One should choose something more
> economical if he/she don't like the associated costs.


The typical SUV driver would say you should drive something more durable
that isn't ruined by a minor collision. That knife cuts both ways.
 
P

Paul M. Hobson

Guest

> Brian Huntley wrote:
>> 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

>


Nate Nagel wrote:
> (smacks forehead)
>
> Seriously. Is it even possible to have a rational, reasonable
> discussion anymore? I'm starting to think "no."


LOL! You're crackin' me up, Nate. Keep 'em coming!

\\paul
--
Paul M. Hobson
..:change the f to ph to reply:.
 
E

Ed Pirrero

Guest
On Mar 3, 9:37 am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Mar 3, 11:18 am, Ed Pirrero <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > No matter how you dance and posture,
> > your intent was quite clear.

>
> If a person on a bike has lights that are acceptable by law, their
> clothing color makes no practical difference.


Again, an assertion without proof.

E.P.
 
E

Ed Pirrero

Guest
On Mar 3, 9:16 am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Mar 3, 12:10 am, Zoot Katz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 12:00:10 -0800, Jym Dyer <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> > 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? ...

>
> > 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?

>
> Excellent point.  In fact, I'm quite sure that I've been delayed by
> motorists while I've biked, far more than I've delayed motorists
> because of my bicycling.  


Actually, Brent and I have made these points repeatedly in r.a.d.
DAGS so you don't look so stupid.

E.P.
 
P

Paul M. Hobson

Guest
Brent P wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Paul M. Hobson wrote:
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>> Of course, that contained a subtle shift of subject, since a bent bike
>>>> is not the same as a damaged car - and Nate was terrified of damaging
>>>> his car, not hurting anyone else.

>> Brent P wrote:
>>> A car can't bend a bike that was upright with someone riding it without some
>>> sort of damage to the car. You might consider the level of damage
>>> trivial, but should someone take a screw driver and do the same kind of
>>> damage to your nicest bicycle I doubt you'd shrug it off.

>> The Suburban that hit and ran away from me had one dent its hood (my
>> wrist) and one in its bumper (my shin). My frame, was unrideable.

>
> So you agree with me.
>
>> Cosmetic damage to one vehicle is nothing comparing to structurally
>> ruining another.

>
> Again, I say that it might be called trivial by some.
>
>> And no, I don't care that fixing cosmetic damage to
>> certain vehicles is so expensive. One should choose something more
>> economical if he/she don't like the associated costs.

>
> The typical SUV driver would say you should drive something more durable
> that isn't ruined by a minor collision. That knife cuts both ways.


When he mans up and agrees to pay my out of pocket medical expenses
associated with *two* wrist operations, he and I can have that conversation.

Until then, he's just some coward hiding behind a steel cage.

\\paul
--
Paul M. Hobson
..:change the f to ph to reply:.
 
B

Brent P

Guest
In article <[email protected]>, Paul M. Hobson wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, Paul M. Hobson wrote:
>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> Of course, that contained a subtle shift of subject, since a bent bike
>>>>> is not the same as a damaged car - and Nate was terrified of damaging
>>>>> his car, not hurting anyone else.
>>> Brent P wrote:
>>>> A car can't bend a bike that was upright with someone riding it without some
>>>> sort of damage to the car. You might consider the level of damage
>>>> trivial, but should someone take a screw driver and do the same kind of
>>>> damage to your nicest bicycle I doubt you'd shrug it off.
>>> The Suburban that hit and ran away from me had one dent its hood (my
>>> wrist) and one in its bumper (my shin). My frame, was unrideable.

>>
>> So you agree with me.
>>
>>> Cosmetic damage to one vehicle is nothing comparing to structurally
>>> ruining another.

>>
>> Again, I say that it might be called trivial by some.
>>
>>> And no, I don't care that fixing cosmetic damage to
>>> certain vehicles is so expensive. One should choose something more
>>> economical if he/she don't like the associated costs.

>>
>> The typical SUV driver would say you should drive something more durable
>> that isn't ruined by a minor collision. That knife cuts both ways.

>
> When he mans up and agrees to pay my out of pocket medical expenses
> associated with *two* wrist operations, he and I can have that conversation.


Many SUV drivers would say it's your fault for not being protected....
well at least the ones I've heard voice an opinion while I was using two
wheeled human powered transportation...

> Until then, he's just some coward hiding behind a steel cage.


Nahh, if he paid he would probably still be a coward hiding in a steel
cage.
 
M

Matthew T. Russotto

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


Yes, that's what a mid-block stop sign is. They're "traffic calming"
devices. Think any significant percentage of cyclists will stop for them?

>> >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.


Wrong again. More than half were drivers in single vehicle crashes.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
 
E

Ed Pirrero

Guest
On Mar 3, 11:48 am, [email protected] (Matthew T. Russotto)
wrote:
> In article <[email protected]m>,
>
>
>
>
>
>  <[email protected]> wrote:
> >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.

>
> Yes, that's what a mid-block stop sign is.  They're "traffic calming"
> devices.  Think any significant percentage of cyclists will stop for them?
>
> >> >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.

>
> Wrong again.  More than half were drivers in single vehicle crashes.


Hey - Frank never lets *facts* get in the way of a good rant. Unless
he can use them to try and obfuscate the issue.

E.P.
 
S

Stephen Harding

Guest
[email protected] wrote:
> On Mar 3, 10:39 am, Stephen Harding <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>[email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>On Mar 3, 9:50 am, Stephen Harding <[email protected]> wrote:

>>
>>>>What class of behavior is that?

>>
>>>Seems to me the behavior issue is that of someone with serious
>>>attitude issues, and/or no comprehension of driving etiquette, which
>>>includes things like flash-to-pass.

>>
>>Flash-to-pass is highway rudeness.

>
> No, it is not. It's the proper, polite, and legal way to signal to
> traffic in front of you that you wish to overtake them. Not yielding
> to the flash-to-pass is rude at the least, and depending where you are
> possibly illegal as well. Your misconception of this basic driving
> concept is all too common in this country, but that doesn't excuse it.


Would you please provide me a cite where not giving way to someone
flashing their headlights at you is illegal. I don't think that is
the case in MA.

When I lived in TX, there was a rule that if three or more cars
backed up behind you, you were required to move over (when safe to
do so) to let them by.

I can see the purpose of light flashing after someone has spent at
least a little time stuck behind a vehicle that is merely traveling
in a passing lane. Give the guy a little time to complete the pass,
and then remind him someone is behind trying to get by. Much like
flashing headlights at oncoming cars with high beams on.

A gentle reminder is fine.

But all too often, I see people roaring up the passing lane rapidly
bearing down on others in that lane while flashing their lights to
get them out of the way.

Such individuals themselves never leave the passing lane. Why would
they? There's another car to be passed right ahead. They cover
probably tens of miles in the passing lane, flashing the headlights
for people to move out of their way.

This is not "gentle reminder". It is rude selfish behavior on the
part of a driver who feels a public road is entirely his.

>>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.

>
> You're right, it's a completely different situation. So why are we
> talking about oncoming drivers and high beams all of a sudden?


Because that's an actual reminder, where flashing of lights is
useful for someone who may not be aware his high beams are on.

Madly flashing one's lights while driving at high speed in a passing
lane is not "gentle reminder". As I said. It's rude selfishness.

>>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's signaling an intent to overtake. How would you like him to
> signal? Is your cell number on your rear windshield?


I know he's there. Can't he see me passing someone and am simply
going slower than he wants? What more information does the clod
need to figure out the situation?

>>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.
>>
>>So the issue is simply one of a person not passing fast enough for
>>another person behind them.
>>
>>I see no reason why, on a *public road*, with *posted speed* being
>>met or exceeded by myself, that I am required, legally or by
>>"etiquette", to accelerate and complete my pass, so as to produce
>>minimal inconvenience for the person behind me wishing to move along
>>at a faster speed.

>
> You're not. You should have checked your mirrors and made sure you
> had time to complete your pass before you switched lanes.


Depends on the road situation.

Here in MA, people park themselves in the passing lane. People go
quite fast as well. There may never be time to provide someone
who is well above the speed limit enough time. Most of the time
(on busy highways like the Mass Pike), I'm not the only one blocking
the passing lane for the clod. There's a line of cars ahead of me
that's he's going to have to flash his way through. All of them
actually passing other cars.

If he's doing the speed limit, or at least median traffic speed,
this shouldn't be an issue at all. But the mad flashers aren't
doing that. They're doing high rates of speed expecting everyone
else (out of politeness no doubt) to modify their speed to
accommodate them.

>>Who's being the "thug" in this situation?

>
> Certainly not the person flashing their beams at you, in a gesture
> that you clearly misinterpret.


I don't think I'm misinterpreting the fellow at all. I know exactly
what he's saying. It isn't "Excuse me sir, I'm trying to get by".
It's "You'll ruin my day if I have to back off the throttle so get
the F* out of my way".

It's quite similar to honking the horn. A slight honk can be a
"gentle reminder" to someone daydreaming that the light has changed.

It can also be a long blast effectively swearing at someone for not
being fast enough off the mark when the light changed.


SMH
 

Similar threads

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