Saw an intelligent bicyclist today

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



T

Tom Keats

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,

> 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).


People complain about each other too much, and don't
acknowlege ourselves enough.

At where I work, the day-shift gripes about stuff the
afternoon shift does, and vice-verso. You can't win.
Everyboy has a beef/whine/gripe/compaint about the "others."

This whole idea that human society needs a pecking order
(promulgated by pecking-order enthusiasts) should be
swiftly eradicated.

There shouldn't be any lords. Especially on the
streets, roads & highways.

Drivers & cyclists complaining about eadh other is so
much like day-shift & afternoon shift at where I work
complaining about each other. Same ol' story, and
nothing gets resolved.

I guess nothing gets resolved on Usenet.

Oh, well.



--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca
 
On Mar 3, 10:28 pm, Stephen Harding <[email protected]> wrote:

<snip>

> But I drive a mixed agenda.  I drive 138 miles each way most weekends
> during the summer in my 16 mpg Dodge half ton, V-8, 4WD pickup truck
> mostly on I-90, I-195 and Rt 146 (RI/MA).  These are all divided
> highways.  I try to save a little gas, which I can do at under 65 mph,
> but I also want to get to where I'm going or home again.  Sometimes I
> might drive close to 75mph and just accept the 15mpg penalty.


15MPG penalty for a 10-15MPH speed differential? No way. Perhaps
what you mean is you get 15MPG @ 75MPH, and are able to squeeze
18-20MPG if you drive 60ish. That's a 3-5MPG penalty, not a 15MPG
penalty. Again, your knowledge is showing.
 
On Mar 3, 10:48 pm, Stephen Harding <[email protected]> wrote:
> [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 thanI
> >>>>>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?

>
> The apparent implication that all the hit and run bicyclist damage
> might be greater than damage to cars than by other cars.


I never implied that bicycle-car damage is greater than car-car
damage. I simply stated that franks example was biased.


> The hit-and-run bicycle scenario seemed a stretch.


Really? So in your experience if a bicycle hits your car and damages
it you would assume they're going to willfully stop, provide you with
their information and willingly pay for the damage to your vehicle?
And you're in MA? Wow...

I personally know many cyclists who will not hesitate to put an SPD
(bike shoe clip device, metal) into a car that is crowding them off
the road and endangering them. I know one of them *very* well. Ride
regularly in MA and you will encounter that situation. I don't know a
single one that will sit around and provide the damaged vehicle's
owner with contact info.
 
On Mar 3, 10:45 pm, Stephen Harding <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Mar 3, 4:18 pm, Stephen Harding <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> >>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.

>
> Yes I saw the example after posting. I still am interested in
> context.
>
> I also would consider a light flash more polite than a horn.
>
> But I also believe it's just unnecessary. A light flash should
> only be necessary when a single car is blocking a passing lane
> by not making progress against a vehicle being passed, or if
> the vehicle is all by itself in the left lane.
>
> Any other condition such as a line of cars passing and/or a line
> of vehicles being passed (where no easy return to right lane is
> possible without cutting someone off) should be obvious enough
> to a motorist that flashing of lights is pointless.
>
> >>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.

>
> Do you drive the Mass Pike? If so, where abouts? Driving I-90 out
> in the Berkshires isn't the same as driving the Pike in Worcester
> or Framingham. You surely know that.


I do drive the pike on occasion, usually Boston to NY or 495/90 to
NY. I do more driving on 95 as it's my commute, so that's where most
of my bias on MA traffic comes from. However, I do spend many hours
every year on all the major highways, between trips to the city, the
cape, western MA & NY.


> I agree that at times, the left lane indeed is not moving as fast
> as other lanes, but mostly that is not the case.


Perhaps not on the cape. On 95 North of Boston it is, especially when
traffic starts to pick up. Northbound Fridays and Southbound Sundays
are nightmares I'd rather not think about, but the left lane is almost
never the fastest lane on those days.


> On the Pike, they're parking themselves in the left lane and moving
> as fast as they can appears to be de rigeur.
>
> But then, MA drivers as a group are not exactly noted for good driving
> technique.


On this we agree. Unfortunately, based on your posts here, I have a
feeling you're part of the group causing that stereotype.
 
N

N8N

Guest
On Mar 4, 7:00 am, [email protected] (Tom Keats) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
>
> > 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).

>
> People complain about each other too much, and don't
> acknowlege  ourselves enough.
>
> At where I work, the day-shift gripes about stuff the
> afternoon shift does, and vice-verso.  You can't win.
> Everyboy has a beef/whine/gripe/compaint about the "others."
>
> This whole idea that human society needs a pecking order
> (promulgated by pecking-order enthusiasts) should be
> swiftly eradicated.
>
> There shouldn't be any lords.  Especially on the
> streets, roads & highways.
>
> Drivers & cyclists complaining about eadh other is so
> much like day-shift & afternoon shift at where I work
> complaining about each other.  Same ol' story, and
> nothing gets resolved.
>
> I guess nothing gets resolved on Usenet.
>
> Oh, well.


It won't get resolved IRL either until BOTH groups start actually
playing by the rules.

I get a definite vibe from the cycling group that their **** don't
stink - oooh, cagers break the law all the time but most cyclists are
responsible alert riders. BS! The average cyclist doesn't have a
clue, much like the average driver.

nate
 
On Mar 4, 8:02 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> In traffic it is impossible to leave enough distance for a drum-brake
> pickup to stop in the same distance as a high-performance sports car.
> If that large of a gap is left, it will be filled.


It's not impossible, Nate. You just slow down. The high-performance
sports car will vanish into the distance. If another car passes and
fills the gap that is left, he too will vanish into the distance. All
you have to do is continue going less than the prevailing speed of
traffic.

And if you're driving a vehicle that you know you can't stop very
well, that's what you should be doing. Hit someone behind, and the
legal system will gladly explain that to you in detail.

- Frank Krygowski
 
E

Ed Pirrero

Guest
On Mar 3, 6:27 pm, Stephen Harding <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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 <[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.

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


That's right, I don't. For a very good reason - the data don't
support it.

Speeds are higher on the German Autobahn, yet fatalities per mile are
lower. Hmmm.

Speeds have been going up on U.S. highways for the past three decades,
yet fatality statistics are trending down

Hmmm.

In almost all cases, when the 55 NMSL was repealed and the states set
higher speed limits, fatalities went down.

How incredibly strange.

"Speed kills" is a lie.

E.P.
 
E

Ed Pirrero

Guest
On Mar 3, 7:19 pm, Zoot Katz <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 20:18:36 -0600, Tom Sherman
>
> Many drivers wish to project their self-worth through the car they
> drive. I've no problem with that. It helps me regard them as
> something less than human.  They're just plain "squishy turds in a
> can" when considering them collectively and caged.


Which, of course, you never say aloud in public.

It's easy to be a usenet hero. It's harder IRL.

E.P.
 
On Mar 4, 8:42 am, N8N <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I get a definite vibe from the cycling group that their **** don't
> stink - oooh, cagers break the law all the time but most cyclists are
> responsible alert riders. BS! The average cyclist doesn't have a
> clue, much like the average driver.


Your "definite vibe" is born in your own imagination. It's easy to
find cyclists complaining about other law-flouting cyclists. I'll do
it now, if you like, by agreeing with your final sentence. The
average road user does a lot of truly stupid stuff.

The difference, which seems to confuse the r.a.d. boys, is that
cyclist stupidity only rarely damages anyone else's person or
vehicle. Motorist stupidity kills over 100 people per day in the US,
and keeps over 200,000 auto body repairmen employed full-time, fixing
the cars that aren't totaled.

Don't pretend the consequences are equal.

- Frank Krygowski
 
On Mar 4, 11:40 am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Mar 4, 8:02 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > In traffic it is impossible to leave enough distance for a drum-brake
> > pickup to stop in the same distance as a high-performance sports car.
> > If that large of a gap is left, it will be filled.

>
> It's not impossible, Nate.


Frank, pay attention. You quoted me and responded to me, this has
nothing to do with Nate. You are correct it is not impossible, but it
is impractical. I'm not going to spend an extra 30 minutes per day
making sure I'm the slowest vehicle on the road.


> You just slow down. The high-performance
> sports car will vanish into the distance. If another car passes and
> fills the gap that is left, he too will vanish into the distance. All
> you have to do is continue going less than the prevailing speed of
> traffic.


And there is no need for that. Simply maintain a safe following
distance. Like I said, the open and generous shoulder is one of the
factors to take into consideration when deciding what a safe following
distance is. The fact that I STILL did not rear-end this fool, even
with them trying to make me, is really all that needs to be said about
my following distance. If it had not been sufficient I'd have crashed
into the fool.


> And if you're driving a vehicle that you know you can't stop very
> well, that's what you should be doing.


My vehicle stops about average for all the vehicles on the road. I've
never rear-ended someone, even when they try to make me. That's
because I DO maintain a proper following distance. However, when
someone on the highway mashes the brake pedal to the floor at highway
speeds in their high-performance vehicle, it's going to muff things
up. That was the point of the post.


> Hit someone behind, and the
> legal system will gladly explain that to you in detail.


I'm aware of the rules. I've been rear-ended. More than once. Since
I am very observant when driving, and always maintain a safe following
distance, I don't anticipate ever being on the other end of the
collision, however.
 
E

Ed Pirrero

Guest
On Mar 4, 8:54 am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Mar 4, 8:42 am, N8N <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I get a definite vibe from the cycling group that their **** don't
> > stink - oooh, cagers break the law all the time but most cyclists are
> > responsible alert riders.  BS!  The average cyclist doesn't have a
> > clue, much like the average driver.

>
> Your "definite vibe" is born in your own imagination.  It's easy to
> find cyclists complaining about other law-flouting cyclists.  I'll do
> it now, if you like, by agreeing with your final sentence.  The
> average road user does a lot of truly stupid stuff.
>
> The difference, which seems to confuse the r.a.d. boys, is that
> cyclist stupidity only rarely damages anyone else's person or
> vehicle.  Motorist stupidity kills over 100 people per day in the US,
> and keeps over 200,000 auto body repairmen employed full-time, fixing
> the cars that aren't totaled.
>
> Don't pretend the consequences are equal.


And don't fall for your logical fallacy of the two wrongs.

Wrong is wrong, no matter what the vehicle.

E.P.
 
S

Stephen Harding

Guest
Nate Nagel wrote:
> Stephen Harding wrote:
>
>> Stephen Harding wrote:
>>
>>> Ed Pirrero wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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!!*

>>
>>
>>
>> Sorry. All you characters are beginning to merge into one
>> driver madly flashing their headlights, doing 90 mph and
>> thinking they don't really need to abide by speed limits
>> or traffic stops.
>>
>> I guess it's an instance of "Ed" rather than "Brent".

>
>
> Not at all. We're just sick of being stuck in the passing lane behind
> some old guy in a Buick doing 64 "passing" some other old guy in a Buick
> doing 63.9999998.
>
> The VAST majority of LLBs aren't even passing anyone, they're either
> just camping out in the left lane for no apparent reason, or even worse,
> pacing the car next to them not either in front of or far enough behind
> to slip through without some really squidly driving.
>
> That said, I can understand your frustration, but put yourself in the
> seat of the guy behind you. He's *expecting* you to do actively hold
> him up, because you're driving slow (relatively) in the passing lane and
> that's the behavior he's come to expect from other motorists. If you
> pass promtply and move over quickly, he'll be pleasantly surprised and
> might even acknowledge your courtesy with a wave as he passes. If you
> actively block him, you're just another of the rude and/or clueless
> masses that make everyday driving unpleasant.


The problem on the Mass Pike, which I drive most often, is that people
are indeed parked in the left lane. They *generally* are passing
vehicles in the middle lane with a variable speed differential. As
someone else noted, sometimes they are actually going slower than middle
or right lanes, but I find that only for short periods of time.

And sometimes, you simply can't get back into the middle lane. It's too
crowded and you'd be cutting someone off or outright committing suicide
to do so.

I honestly believe it doesn't really bother most people in the left
[passing] lane to be honest. They are resigned to being stuck behind a
line of cars ahead of them that aren't going to pull over and it's
generally the best lane to be in speed-wise from what is available.

Not a great way to run a highway, but that's reality on the Pike and
probably anywhere else in the US with a congested highway.

Heck even the Germans are increasingly driving that way when the
autobahn passes by larger cities. If it happens to the Germans, there's
no hope for the rest of us!!!


SMH
 
D

Doc O'Leary

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

> In article
> <[email protected]et>, Doc
> O'Leary wrote:
> > 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?

>
> Geebus... you really like to mix stuff up don't you. You people are sick.
> You go around doing things in traffic and on usenet to intentionally ****
> people off then you scream 'road rager! road rager!' when someone gets
> ****** off. Grow up.


It is you who is acting immature. *I* am not the cyclist that somehow
****** you off in traffic. I'm just a guy on Usenet spending too much
time trying to figure out what your particular, individual problem is.
You are the one who keeps getting mixed up on what point it is you're
trying to make, devolving into personal insults, and now you've gotten
lost into generalizing a population. Your posts drip with prejudice and
bigotry. I'm done with you.

--
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
 
E

Ed Pirrero

Guest
On Mar 4, 9:01 am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Mar 4, 11:45 am, Ed Pirrero <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 3, 6:27 pm, Stephen Harding <[email protected]> wrote:

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

>
> > That's right, I don't.  For a very good reason - the data don't
> > support it.

>
> > Speeds are higher on the German Autobahn, yet fatalities per mile are
> > lower.  Hmmm.

>
> Are you a person who pretends there is no other difference between
> German driving and American driving?  IOW, that American driving skill
> equals that of Germans?  If so, your thinking is extremely
> simplistic.  Other car fans have recently argued the opposite point,
> very strongly.


Your position is weak if it relies on a straw man.

> > Speeds have been going up on U.S. highways for the past three decades,
> > yet fatality statistics are trending down

>
> I think Stephen's data was much more complete than your simple
> assertion.


Faltalities for VMT are down, even as speeds go up. If speed kills,
where's the carnage?

>  Furthermore, have you accounted for the environmental
> differences caused by improved medical skills and techniques in the
> past three decades?  If nothing had changed at all but the invention
> of CAT scans - for just _one_ example - the fatality statistics would
> still be trending down.


Nothing happens in a vacuum, Frank. The old saw of "speed kils" is
just not true.

> > "Speed kills" is a lie.

>
> And so is the concept of kinetic energy, I suppose?


Nice straw man.

Logic, much?

E.P.
 
S

Stephen Harding

Guest
Brent P wrote:

> That said, there's nothing new in this thread for me and I'm done.


Nothing new indeed!

Someone who can discount a list of studies in Australia, UK,
Sweden, Denmark, Germany and something like 40 US states as
"MADD propaganda" because they disagree with his speed is
irrelevant to accident rates dogma clearly isn't capable of
recognizing anything new.

Bye <flash><flash>.


SMH
 
S

Stephen Harding

Guest
[email protected] wrote:
> On Mar 3, 10:28 pm, Stephen Harding <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>But I drive a mixed agenda. I drive 138 miles each way most weekends
>>during the summer in my 16 mpg Dodge half ton, V-8, 4WD pickup truck
>>mostly on I-90, I-195 and Rt 146 (RI/MA). These are all divided
>>highways. I try to save a little gas, which I can do at under 65 mph,
>>but I also want to get to where I'm going or home again. Sometimes I
>>might drive close to 75mph and just accept the 15mpg penalty.

>
>
> 15MPG penalty for a 10-15MPH speed differential? No way. Perhaps
> what you mean is you get 15MPG @ 75MPH, and are able to squeeze
> 18-20MPG if you drive 60ish. That's a 3-5MPG penalty, not a 15MPG
> penalty. Again, your knowledge is showing.


I meant 15mpg at 75 and 16 at 60. Actually a range of about a 2 mpg
penalty.

I can only dream of a 5 mpg advantage!


SMH
 
S

Stephen Harding

Guest
[email protected] wrote:
> On Mar 3, 10:48 pm, Stephen Harding <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>[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?

>>
>>The apparent implication that all the hit and run bicyclist damage
>>might be greater than damage to cars than by other cars.

>
>
> I never implied that bicycle-car damage is greater than car-car
> damage. I simply stated that franks example was biased.
>
>
>
>>The hit-and-run bicycle scenario seemed a stretch.

>
>
> Really? So in your experience if a bicycle hits your car and damages
> it you would assume they're going to willfully stop, provide you with
> their information and willingly pay for the damage to your vehicle?
> And you're in MA? Wow...
>
> I personally know many cyclists who will not hesitate to put an SPD
> (bike shoe clip device, metal) into a car that is crowding them off
> the road and endangering them. I know one of them *very* well. Ride
> regularly in MA and you will encounter that situation. I don't know a
> single one that will sit around and provide the damaged vehicle's
> owner with contact info.


I don't know. I glanced off the side view mirror of a pickup truck
and waited for the owner to ensure no damage (there wasn't any).

I'm not so naive to believe every bicyclist would do this but I don't
know what percentage would bolt.

I was merely saying the "stretch" was that hit-and-run bicyclists
would cause any significant damage to cars compared with other cars.


SMH
 
S

Stephen Harding

Guest
[email protected] wrote:
> On Mar 3, 10:45 pm, Stephen Harding <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On the Pike, they're parking themselves in the left lane and moving
>>as fast as they can appears to be de rigeur.
>>
>>But then, MA drivers as a group are not exactly noted for good driving
>>technique.

>
>
> On this we agree. Unfortunately, based on your posts here, I have a
> feeling you're part of the group causing that stereotype.


Of course you do.

I'm keeping you from your desired speed because I
won't get out of your way fast enough.


SMH
 
On Mar 4, 12:44 pm, Ed Pirrero <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mar 4, 9:01 am, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 4, 11:45 am, Ed Pirrero <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> > > On Mar 3, 6:27 pm, Stephen Harding <[email protected]> wrote:

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

>
> > > That's right, I don't. For a very good reason - the data don't
> > > support it.

>
> > > Speeds are higher on the German Autobahn, yet fatalities per mile are
> > > lower. Hmmm.

>
> > Are you a person who pretends there is no other difference between
> > German driving and American driving? IOW, that American driving skill
> > equals that of Germans? If so, your thinking is extremely
> > simplistic. Other car fans have recently argued the opposite point,
> > very strongly.

>
> Your position is weak if it relies on a straw man.
>
> > > Speeds have been going up on U.S. highways for the past three decades,
> > > yet fatality statistics are trending down

>
> > I think Stephen's data was much more complete than your simple
> > assertion.

>
> Faltalities for VMT are down, even as speeds go up. If speed kills,
> where's the carnage?
>
> > Furthermore, have you accounted for the environmental
> > differences caused by improved medical skills and techniques in the
> > past three decades? If nothing had changed at all but the invention
> > of CAT scans - for just _one_ example - the fatality statistics would
> > still be trending down.

>
> Nothing happens in a vacuum, Frank. The old saw of "speed kils" is
> just not true.
>
> > > "Speed kills" is a lie.

>
> > And so is the concept of kinetic energy, I suppose?

>
> Nice straw man.
>
> Logic, much?
>
> E.P.


Nice post, Ed! Several unsupported assertions, a couple false calls
of "straw man" (you must not know the definition of that term!), no
real response to any of the points I made, and trimming and ignoring
the data presented in a citation.

The final "logic much?" was unintended irony at its best!

- Frank Krygowski
 
On Mar 4, 2:21 pm, Stephen Harding <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Mar 3, 10:45 pm, Stephen Harding <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> >>On the Pike, they're parking themselves in the left lane and moving
> >>as fast as they can appears to be de rigeur.

>
> >>But then, MA drivers as a group are not exactly noted for good driving
> >>technique.

>
> > On this we agree.  Unfortunately, based on your posts here, I have a
> > feeling you're part of the group causing that stereotype.

>
> Of course you do.
>
> I'm keeping you from your desired speed because I
> won't get out of your way fast enough.
>
> SMH


Actually, you drive faster than I do on unobstructed MA highways. I
do, however, believe you're keeping others from their desired speed in
a MFFY fashion. We've both posted our highway travel speeds in this
thread, and yours are higher. Not that there's anything wrong with
that, mind you, and you certainly won't be held up by *me* in the
passing lane.

If you ever do manage to hold me up, it'll be if you're part of the
mass exodus to NH that happens every Friday, or the return mess on
Sundays. In that case I'll be expecting the highways to be full of
the inconsiderate types mentioned here, and I'll be taking back roads
home. I prefer not to sit stopped in traffic with my EZ Pass in hand,
within sight of 3 empty EZ pass lanes and unable to get to them. The
reason I can't get to them is because of all the idiots trying to cut
across multiple lanes of traffic to a faster (rarely is faster) line,
effectively blocking all the EZ pass lanes. The people who are
willing to block those lanes to try to cut into a different cash line
instead of staying in the lane they were in when the traffic stopped
are probably the same people who drove there in the left lane on
cruise control at whatever speed they felt was as fast as anyone
should be going. Heck, average speed during these weekend migrations
is usually well below the SL due to sheer volume alone anyway.
 

Similar threads

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