Saw an intelligent bicyclist today

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



E

Ed Pirrero

Guest
On Mar 3, 12:53 pm, Stephen Harding <[email protected]> wrote:

First you say this...

>  Just don't expect me to accelerate up
> to 90 so you won't have to back off on the throttle.


...then you say this.

> But I'm not going to change my driving speed, while adequately passing
> someone, because somebody feels a public road is his private runway.


You expect everyone else to change *their* speed for you, but find it
exceedingly rude for them to want you to change your speed for them.

The inherent contradiction in your position *should* make your head
explode.

LOL. You MFFYs are the dumbest folks on the planet.

E.P.
 
S

Stephen Harding

Guest
Brent P wrote:
> 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"


Light flashing can be useful just like horns can be useful.

Light flashing can be rude, just like horn blasts can be rude.

It all depends on the context of the situation.

Does this law imply one must accomodate speeders? Does this mean
if there is a long line of traffic to my right lane, I am required
to accelerate to 90 mph so the person behind me will not be in an
over-taking situation?

Will the cop that stops me understand that?

I think there is more to the law in these circumstances than you
are implying. I'll have to ask my state troop brother-in-law what
the legal situation is here in MA.


SMH
 
S

Stephen Harding

Guest
[email protected] wrote:
> 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.


So do you believe this situation is so pervasive, that bicycle
damage to cars actually does exceed that from other motor vehicles?


SMH
 
B

Brent P

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

> 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.


After the first twenty people that needed a gentle reminder, the
reminders might get a little less gentle over time...
 
B

Brent P

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

> if there is a long line of traffic to my right lane, I am required
> to accelerate to 90 mph so the person behind me will not be in an
> over-taking situation?
>
> Will the cop that stops me understand that?
>
> I think there is more to the law in these circumstances than you
> are implying. I'll have to ask my state troop brother-in-law what
> the legal situation is here in MA.


Why is your +2mph pass so damn important anyway?

I find it interesting that drivers such as yourself are all about slow is
safe and calling other drivers impaitent, etc... so it puzzles me as to
why it's so damn important to go 2mph faster than you were going before
you caught up to someone in the right lane?

Just wait for a big enough gap to make your pass, if one never happens,
what's the big deal for paitent adult driver who believes slower speeds
are safer and morally superior to faster ones? It's only 2mph.
 
S

Stephen Harding

Guest
Brent P wrote:
> 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.


I suspect they just can't catch you!


SMH
 
On Mar 3, 4:18 pm, Stephen Harding <[email protected]> wrote:
> [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.


Brent already gave you an example of signal to pass, although in that
instance the signal mentioned is an audible signal.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.autos.driving/msg/261e7e002dd1e61c
for reference. That was in this thread. There are other references
of states laws requiring drivers to yield to other vehicles that have
indicated intent to pass. They vary on audible (horn) or visual
(flash-to-pass). I consider a flash more polite than a horn.


> 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.


I was born and raised in MA. I still work there. You're suggesting
all the cars in the left lane are passing other cars? IME, especially
in MA, the left lane is rarely the fastest lane.


> 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.


I believe the situation you speak of is extremely rare, and you are
constrewing it into "flash to pass is rude". That is an incorrect
assessment. Some drivers are rude? Sure. Flash-to-pass is rude?
No. The examples I run into at least once a week, which I mentioned
in my post and you snipped, are typical examples of flash-to-pass.
The only rude thing is the drivers refusing to yield, or worse yet
braking.


> >>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.


So now you're saying that flash-to-pass can be rude or polite? You're
getting warmer. Some drivers are rude, and they may or may not
include their high beams and horn in their rude behavior. That does
not make flash-to-pass rude in itself.
 
On Mar 3, 4:31 pm, Stephen Harding <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > 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.

>
> So do you believe this situation is so pervasive, that bicycle
> damage to cars actually does exceed that from other motor vehicles?


No, I believe the "data" frank requested to "prove" him wrong was
blatantly biased, unfair, and not a quality example. I believe that's
what I typed. Where did you see the suggestion that I believe
bicycle to car damage exceeds car to car damage?
 
B

Brent P

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

>
> I suspect they just can't catch you!


Believe it or not, much of the time I am in the bottom 50% speed wise.

Even when I drive the fastest I am willing to go, there are drivers going
faster. I don't drive faster than the ISP officers drive, but a good
number of people don't so restrict themselves.
 
On Mar 3, 5:48 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mar 3, 4:31 pm, Stephen Harding <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> > So do you believe this situation is so pervasive, that bicycle
> > damage to cars actually does exceed that from other motor vehicles?

>
> No, I believe the "data" frank requested to "prove" him wrong was
> blatantly biased, unfair, and not a quality example.


Don't dance around the question, Dan. The question was whether
bicycle damage to cars exceeds damage to cars caused by other motor
vehicles. Do you really believe it does?

Either "yes" or "no" should be your first word. Explanation and
documentation should follow.

- Frank Krygowski
 
On Mar 3, 7:18 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Mar 3, 5:48 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 3, 4:31 pm, Stephen Harding <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> > > So do you believe this situation is so pervasive, that bicycle
> > > damage to cars actually does exceed that from other motor vehicles?

>
> > No, I believe the "data" frank requested to "prove" him wrong was
> > blatantly biased, unfair, and not a quality example.

>
> Don't dance around the question, Dan.  The question was whether
> bicycle damage to cars exceeds damage to cars caused by other motor
> vehicles.  Do you really believe it does?
>
> Either "yes" or "no" should be  your first word.  Explanation and
> documentation should follow.
>
> - Frank Krygowski


Frank, my first word in response to the question was *"No"*. Your
reading comprehension is lacking. Dancing around the issue? Get a
grip man.
 
N

Nate Nagel

Guest
[email protected] wrote:
> On Mar 3, 4:31 pm, Stephen Harding <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>[email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>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.

>>
>>So do you believe this situation is so pervasive, that bicycle
>>damage to cars actually does exceed that from other motor vehicles?

>
>
> No, I believe the "data" frank requested to "prove" him wrong was
> blatantly biased, unfair, and not a quality example. I believe that's
> what I typed. Where did you see the suggestion that I believe
> bicycle to car damage exceeds car to car damage?


Just to clarify my statement, most vehicles, even if they're actively
gunning for me, are large enough that I'll see them in time to take
evasive action, unless it's the rare idiot driving around after dark
with his lights off (and some days, believe me, it feels like they *are*
gunning for me, but at least I can see them coming.) I don't see many
cyclists after dark, as a significant number simply refuse to use proper
safety equipment, until I'm already closer than I'm comfortable with.

nate

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

Bill Sornson

Guest
[email protected] wrote:
> On Mar 3, 7:18 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Mar 3, 5:48 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 3, 4:31 pm, Stephen Harding <[email protected]> wrote:

>>
>>>> So do you believe this situation is so pervasive, that bicycle
>>>> damage to cars actually does exceed that from other motor vehicles?

>>
>>> No, I believe the "data" frank requested to "prove" him wrong was
>>> blatantly biased, unfair, and not a quality example.

>>
>> Don't dance around the question, Dan. The question was whether
>> bicycle damage to cars exceeds damage to cars caused by other motor
>> vehicles. Do you really believe it does?
>>
>> Either "yes" or "no" should be your first word. Explanation and
>> documentation should follow.
>>
>> - Frank Krygowski

>
> Frank, my first word in response to the question was *"No"*. Your
> reading comprehension is lacking. Dancing around the issue? Get a
> grip man.


There's a first time for everything! LOL
 
T

Tom Sherman

Guest
Nate Nagel wrote:
> [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.
>

Sheesh...

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

Tom Sherman

Guest
Brent P. wrote:
> [...]
> I realize you [Frank Krygowski] hate the automobile and see it as a 'death machine'.[...]


I believe Brent P. has Frank Krygowski confused with Zoot Katz.

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

Tom Sherman

Guest
Stephen Harding wrote:
> [...]
> 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.
>

Cross-posting makes for better flame wars. ;)

> [...]
> 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.
>

I do not believe it is the motor vehicle per say, but the isolation the
steel and glass cage provides.

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

Hey, you are not supposed to mention 'bents on RBM! ;)

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

Stephen Harding

Guest
Ed Pirrero wrote:
> 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 <51f3617d-5eec-400[email protected]>,

>>
>>>> <[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.


Says a person who doesn't believe in "speed kills" statistics?
(Or am I confusing you with a myriad of others?)

According to NHTSA 2006 statistics
(http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/nht...icfiles/DOT/NHTSA/NCSA/Content/PDF/810837.pdf
page 32; updated Jan 2008) about 57% of accidents are single car accidents.

However, just because a crash is single vehicle doesn't mean only the
driver goes to motorist heaven (we'll presume he's already living
in driver Hell dealing with scofflaw bicyclists and drivers who don't
respect flashing headlights astern).

There's a concept called "the passenger".

And, to be fair, a multi-vehicle accident may end in the death of
only a single driver. Was the driver a "guilty" party or not?

I'm not able to derive a rough estimate of what number of single
car crash fatalities involve occupants ("other persons") versus
multi-car crashes where only the "guilty" driver is the fatality.

My guess based on some components of the NHTSA data for 2006 is
perhaps a 50-50 split between "other people" and "driver" fatalities.
I'm perfectly willing to revise this estimate if someone can point
me to more thorough data. I did come across a statistic where
67% of drivers died in fatal crashes versus passengers. However,
I don't know what percentage of them were "guilty" drivers.

Nonetheless, a bicyclist probably kills < 0.???1 percent of "other
people" compared to motor vehicle drivers.

Motor vehicle drivers aren't off the hook in comparison to
bicycle drivers in killing "other people". Even if the percentages
were equivalent, the absolute number of persons killed would be
orders of magnitude in difference.


SMH
 
T

Tom Sherman

Guest
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 unlike today's cluster f*ck of drivers scatttered
> *****-nilly all over the road in different lanes.[...]


The USians need to learn from the Germans and ticket the "left lane
bandits" and right hand passers.

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

Tom Sherman

Guest
Brent P? wrote:
> 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.
>

What is needed is the anti-tailgating cannon.

>> 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.


My greatest problem with tailgater's is when I am driving in the right
lane and maintaining a safe distance from the vehicle ahead of me.

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

Stephen Harding

Guest
Ed Pirrero wrote:
> On Mar 3, 12:53 pm, Stephen Harding <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> First you say this...
>
>
>> Just don't expect me to accelerate up
>>to 90 so you won't have to back off on the throttle.

>
>
> ...then you say this.
>
>
>>But I'm not going to change my driving speed, while adequately passing
>>someone, because somebody feels a public road is his private runway.

>
>
> You expect everyone else to change *their* speed for you, but find it
> exceedingly rude for them to want you to change your speed for them.
>
> The inherent contradiction in your position *should* make your head
> explode.
>
> LOL. You MFFYs are the dumbest folks on the planet.


*I'M DOING THE DAMN SPEED LIMIT OR ABOVE BRENT!!*

I'm not asking the person to do 50! I'm only asking for the
period of time it take me to complete my pass that the car
back off on his desired speed.

Life is cruel on public roadways!


SMH
 

Similar threads

H
Replies
6
Views
1K
C
S
Replies
15
Views
274
Road Cycling
Leo Lichtman
L