Saw an intelligent bicyclist today

[Pat]

> It would help if the cyclists would obey the laws and stop running red
> lights and stop driving on the left side of the road. Cyclists are always
> showing up where they're not supposed to be and that's why drivers don't
> see them.

Funny, that's what the drivers always say after they hit a
motorcyclist....."I didn't see him, officer!"

Hmmmmm

 

[Stephen Harding]

N8N wrote:

> Why? If I hit another car because the driver did something illegal,
> or hit a cyclist because he did something illegal, I still hit
> something. I'm still inconvenienced, and I still have to deal with a
> lot of BS. Since my observations are that 100% of cyclists flagrantly
> violate the rules of the road, that seems like a real problem to me.

[...]

> 100% of cyclists blatantly ignore stop signs.

Where on earth do you live?

How much viewing time are we talking about with this
observation? How many bicyclists over what period of time?

Assuming the sample size of your observations are sufficiently
large, I would have to predict a significant number of the
700-800 American bicyclists that die each year must meet their
end in your town, with riding behavior as you claim (assuming
you are in the US)!


SMH

 

[Leo Lichtman]

"Larry Farrell" wrote: Both of your 100%s are 100% BS.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Probably closeer to 95%.>

 

[Larry Farrell]

N8N wrote:
> On Feb 27, 3:40 pm, Larry Farrell <[email protected]> wrote:
>> N8N wrote:
>>> On Feb 27, 3:25 pm, Larry Farrell <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> N8N wrote:
>>>> [snip]
>>>>> Why? If I hit another car because the driver did something illegal,
>>>>> or hit a cyclist because he did something illegal, I still hit
>>>>> something. I'm still inconvenienced, and I still have to deal with a
>>>>> lot of BS. Since my observations are that 100% of cyclists flagrantly
>>>>> violate the rules of the road, that seems like a real problem to me.
>>>> [snip]
>>>>> 100% of cyclists blatantly ignore stop signs.
>>>> Both of your 100%s are 100% BS.
>>> Feel free to ride with me someday and prove me wrong. You won't.
>>> You'll be shocked at what you see. I stand by my statement. 100% of
>>> cyclists that I encounter flagrantly violate the rules of the road.
>>> Most common infraction is blowing through stop signs at speed. It
>>> sounds incredible, but it is true - ALL cyclists that I encounter ride
>>> like they want to be hit. There's a fair number of cyclists around
>>> where I live, too - my commute to/from work takes me across a bike
>>> trail, so there's a lot of cyclists that I assume are getting on/off
>>> the bike trail and riding on the same roads on which I'm driving.
>>> nate
>> Your original statements were that 100% of bicyclists were doing
>> illegal things, not that 100% of the bicyclists you observed were
>> doing so. Therefore, your original statements were blatantly wrong.
>> I stand by *my* statement.
>
> So the ones I don't see are perfectly law-abiding? Somehow I doubt
> that.
>
> nate

No one said that. But you *did* say that 100% of bicyclists do
illegal things, and that is clearly false.


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

[Nate Nagel]

Stephen Harding wrote:
> N8N wrote:
>
>> Why? If I hit another car because the driver did something illegal,
>> or hit a cyclist because he did something illegal, I still hit
>> something. I'm still inconvenienced, and I still have to deal with a
>> lot of BS. Since my observations are that 100% of cyclists flagrantly
>> violate the rules of the road, that seems like a real problem to me.
>
>
> [...]
>
>> 100% of cyclists blatantly ignore stop signs.
>
>
> Where on earth do you live?

Falls Church, VA

> How much viewing time are we talking about with this
> observation? How many bicyclists over what period of time?

I've lived here for over a year. I see anywhere from 1-5 cyclists every
morning, and often a few more in the evening.

> Assuming the sample size of your observations are sufficiently
> large, I would have to predict a significant number of the
> 700-800 American bicyclists that die each year must meet their
> end in your town, with riding behavior as you claim (assuming
> you are in the US)!

I'm honestly surprised that more don't.

Just this evening I was following a cyclist who was riding after dark,
wearing dark clothing, with no headlight. *I* could see him because he
did have a taillight, but oncoming traffic couldn't (and this was a very
narrow street where you'd often have to go onto the "wrong" side of the
road to get around parked cars.) Now the other cyclist that I saw was
wearing a reflective vest, so he gets props for that, but making a left
turn a little closer to oncoming traffic than I would have considered
prudent kinda negates that.

The only conclusion I can draw is that either a) cyclists are idiots or
b) the act of getting on a bicycle causes one to become an idiot.

Of course, it's not *just* cyclists - just that it seems that they are
more universally idiotic. Within the same two mile drive home from the
Metro station, I also saw a motorcycle cop pull a U-turn and immediately
make a left turn onto Leesburg Pike and I seriously thought he was going
to run straight into a pedestrian; I slowed in case I would end up
having to stop give a statement/help if I could.

nate

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

 

[Nate Nagel]

Larry Farrell wrote:
> N8N wrote:
>
>> On Feb 27, 3:40 pm, Larry Farrell <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> N8N wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Feb 27, 3:25 pm, Larry Farrell <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> N8N wrote:
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>
>>>>>> Why? If I hit another car because the driver did something illegal,
>>>>>> or hit a cyclist because he did something illegal, I still hit
>>>>>> something. I'm still inconvenienced, and I still have to deal with a
>>>>>> lot of BS. Since my observations are that 100% of cyclists
>>>>>> flagrantly
>>>>>> violate the rules of the road, that seems like a real problem to me.
>>>>>
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>
>>>>>> 100% of cyclists blatantly ignore stop signs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Both of your 100%s are 100% BS.
>>>>
>>>> Feel free to ride with me someday and prove me wrong. You won't.
>>>> You'll be shocked at what you see. I stand by my statement. 100% of
>>>> cyclists that I encounter flagrantly violate the rules of the road.
>>>> Most common infraction is blowing through stop signs at speed. It
>>>> sounds incredible, but it is true - ALL cyclists that I encounter ride
>>>> like they want to be hit. There's a fair number of cyclists around
>>>> where I live, too - my commute to/from work takes me across a bike
>>>> trail, so there's a lot of cyclists that I assume are getting on/off
>>>> the bike trail and riding on the same roads on which I'm driving.
>>>> nate
>>>
>>> Your original statements were that 100% of bicyclists were doing
>>> illegal things, not that 100% of the bicyclists you observed were
>>> doing so. Therefore, your original statements were blatantly wrong.
>>> I stand by *my* statement.
>>
>>
>> So the ones I don't see are perfectly law-abiding? Somehow I doubt
>> that.
>>
>> nate
>
>
> No one said that. But you *did* say that 100% of bicyclists do illegal
> things, and that is clearly false.
>

I said "my observations are 100%." That is a 100% true statement.

nate

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

 

[[email protected]]

On Feb 27, 3:15 pm, N8N <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 27, 2:56 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > Cyclists should use lights and reflectors at night. Those laws should
> > be respected.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > But clothing that suits _your_ fancy is not a legal requirement, and
> > should not be.
>
> Being visible is not "my fancy." If you have no lights, no
> reflectors, and are wearing jeans and a dark shirt, I have no sympathy
> for anything that might happen to you.

Slow down and think about it again, Nate. The jeans and dark shirt
should not be part of the equation. If it's night, a driver has a
right to expect cyclists to have lights, and possibly reflectors.
(That depends a bit on the jurisdiction.) But night or day, a
motorist has no right to complain about jeans and a dark shirt. They
are legal. It's up to you to watch for others on the road; how
they're dressed should not matter.

> > I wish police would enforce _all_ rules of the road, including against
> > motorists who speed through neighborhoods, roll stop signs, run red
> > lights, fail to yield to pedestrians, and all the rest. Yes, they
> > should ticket cyclists - but it's a far lower priority for good
> > reason.
>
> Why? If I hit another car because the driver did something illegal,
> or hit a cyclist because he did something illegal, I still hit
> something. I'm still inconvenienced...

Sorry about that. But the world's been made too convenient for
motorists, to the detriment of everyone else. Besides, I doubt you
can cite five examples in the last five years where a motorist damaged
his precious car due to avoiding a cyclist's illegal move.


> 100% of cyclists blatantly ignore stop signs.

Wrong.

>
> > Regarding "serious hazards to themselves and others," feel free to
> > post documentation of the terrible carnage caused by bicyclists. We
> > know there are roughly 40,000 people killed by motorists each year in
> > America. How many are killed by bicyclists? Post the number, please.
>
> Mostly cyclists kill themselves.

Mostly cyclists do just fine. Bike commuters live longer than car
commuters. Cycling confers benefits which far outweigh its tiny
risks. Cyclists kill essentially nobody. Perhaps one person per year
in the US is killed by a cyclist. (Data are almost impossible to
find, because the problem is too small to bother with.)

> But my car will still be damaged.

Well, obviously, that's what the entire universe revolves
around!

- Frank Krygowski

 

[[email protected]]

On Feb 27, 3:54 pm, [email protected] (Brent P)
wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > For example, regarding stop signs: I live across the street from
> > one. Fewer than half the drivers bother to stop. The majority roll
> > right through. The potential harm from a motorist doing that is
> > hundreds of times worse than that from a cyclist.
>
> Is it one of those stop signs you had put up to slow people down? If so,
> that's the reason people don't respect it.

Brent, you've apparently edited our previous discussions to meet your
preconceptions.

First, I've never, not once, been involved in putting in a stop sign
to slow people down. Neither has the bike-pedestrian committee I've
been a member of.

Second, the stop sign is at a T intersection, and visibility isn't
particularly good, due to shrubbery. It's a very normal and practical
place for a stop sign. No reasonable person would doubt its
appropriateness. (True, the local teeny-bopper would disagree, the
one with the daddy-bought car with the "aerodynamic" wing and fart-can
muffler, but those boys are pretty unreasonable.)

> That said we've been over this before and you didn't believe it then and
> I doubt you do now.

We've been over this before, but you've forgotten most of it.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Nate Nagel]

[email protected] wrote:
> On Feb 27, 3:15 pm, N8N <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Feb 27, 2:56 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Cyclists should use lights and reflectors at night. Those laws should
>>>be respected.
>>
>>Agreed.
>>
>>
>>>But clothing that suits _your_ fancy is not a legal requirement, and
>>>should not be.
>>
>>Being visible is not "my fancy." If you have no lights, no
>>reflectors, and are wearing jeans and a dark shirt, I have no sympathy
>>for anything that might happen to you.
>
>
> Slow down and think about it again, Nate. The jeans and dark shirt
> should not be part of the equation. If it's night, a driver has a
> right to expect cyclists to have lights, and possibly reflectors.
> (That depends a bit on the jurisdiction.) But night or day, a
> motorist has no right to complain about jeans and a dark shirt. They
> are legal. It's up to you to watch for others on the road; how
> they're dressed should not matter.

It does if they have neither lights nor reflectors. If I can't
reasonably be expected to see them while I'm standing still, I'm
certainly not going to see them from my car either. I'm sick of the
attitude that the cyclist is always right and the motorist is always
wrong. I knew at a very young age if I were going to be walking along a
street at night that I should be wearing something that would be easily
visible to motorists, or else carrying a light. I don't see how any
cyclist could say with a straight face that he's somehow exempt from
this same common-sense rule.

>
>>>I wish police would enforce _all_ rules of the road, including against
>>>motorists who speed through neighborhoods, roll stop signs, run red
>>>lights, fail to yield to pedestrians, and all the rest. Yes, they
>>>should ticket cyclists - but it's a far lower priority for good
>>>reason.
>>
>>Why? If I hit another car because the driver did something illegal,
>>or hit a cyclist because he did something illegal, I still hit
>>something. I'm still inconvenienced...
>
>
> Sorry about that. But the world's been made too convenient for
> motorists, to the detriment of everyone else. Besides, I doubt you
> can cite five examples in the last five years where a motorist damaged
> his precious car due to avoiding a cyclist's illegal move.

Hell, I've probably *SEEN* five bent up bikes laying in the middle of
the road, with cops, ambulances, etc. in that time period. Most
recently just a couple months ago on Dolley Madison, a busy multi-lane
road, at the intersection with Anderson Road and the I-66 ramp. Which
is just stupidity to begin with; you'd have to have balls of brass to
ride a bike on Dolley Madison, especially when there's a much more
suitable parallel road less than half a mile away.

>
>>100% of cyclists blatantly ignore stop signs.
>
>
> Wrong.

Come ride with me someday. You'll see I'm right.

>
>>>Regarding "serious hazards to themselves and others," feel free to
>>>post documentation of the terrible carnage caused by bicyclists. We
>>>know there are roughly 40,000 people killed by motorists each year in
>>>America. How many are killed by bicyclists? Post the number, please.
>>
>>Mostly cyclists kill themselves.
>
>
> Mostly cyclists do just fine. Bike commuters live longer than car
> commuters. Cycling confers benefits which far outweigh its tiny
> risks. Cyclists kill essentially nobody. Perhaps one person per year
> in the US is killed by a cyclist. (Data are almost impossible to
> find, because the problem is too small to bother with.)
>
>
>>But my car will still be damaged.
>
>
> Well, obviously, that's what the entire universe revolves
> around!

It does to me. If you're going to be a stupid asshole, fine, but don't
be surprised or offended when people call you a stupid asshole. And if
you cause damage to me or my property due to your own carelessness and
disregard for the law, I don't give a **** if you're on life support, I
still will have no sympathy for you and will sue for the damages you
rightfully owe me (not aimed directly at you, but at the dipshit
cyclists I share the road with.)

nate

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

 

[[email protected]]

On Feb 27, 4:25 pm, "Leo Lichtman" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> Frank... the bad
> drivers you hold responsible--and they are certainly out there--are not
> affected appreciably by what you say here.

I agree that my words won't cause miracles. But discussion is one of
the ways that changes are prompted in society. And the privileged
attitudes of typical motorists certainly needs to be changed.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Brent P]

In article <023d6d40-b1d6-41af-9b47-58f3f334259d@n77g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, [email protected] wrote:
> On Feb 27, 3:54 pm, [email protected] (Brent P)
> wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> > For example, regarding stop signs: I live across the street from
>> > one. Fewer than half the drivers bother to stop. The majority roll
>> > right through. The potential harm from a motorist doing that is
>> > hundreds of times worse than that from a cyclist.
>>
>> Is it one of those stop signs you had put up to slow people down? If so,
>> that's the reason people don't respect it.
>
> Brent, you've apparently edited our previous discussions to meet your
> preconceptions.
>
> First, I've never, not once, been involved in putting in a stop sign
> to slow people down. Neither has the bike-pedestrian committee I've
> been a member of.
>
> Second, the stop sign is at a T intersection, and visibility isn't
> particularly good, due to shrubbery. It's a very normal and practical
> place for a stop sign. No reasonable person would doubt its
> appropriateness. (True, the local teeny-bopper would disagree, the
> one with the daddy-bought car with the "aerodynamic" wing and fart-can
> muffler, but those boys are pretty unreasonable.)

>> That said we've been over this before and you didn't believe it then and
>> I doubt you do now.
>
> We've been over this before, but you've forgotten most of it.

Oh yeah, that's right you achieve the same ends (rapid acceleration and
braking point to point) with frequent speed humps instead of stop signs.

 

[David Poole]

N8N wrote:
>On Feb 27, 10:58 am, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Feb 27, 1:26 am, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > He was wearing one of those bright orange hunting vests and  you couldn't
>> > miss seeing him. Why don't they all do that or at least paint their helmet
>> > hunter orange?
>>
>> If you have trouble seeing ordinary (non-orange) cyclists or
>> pedestrians in plenty of time, you're not driving responsibly.  Try
>> slowing down and paying more attention.
>>
>> - Frank Krygowski
>
>Yes, all of the cyclists in my area are responsible and never, ever do
>stuff like riding after dark without lights and wearing dark and/or
>non-reflective clothing. (snort)
>
>If it didn't seem like the vast majority of cyclists that I see had
>death wishes (in addition to the above, I actually saw a cyclist at
>least slow down - not stop, just slow - for a stop sign the other
>day. It was noteworthy because that was the first time I'd seen that
>happen in months,) you might have a point, but my general impression
>of them is that they are serious hazards to themselves and others, and
>I wish that police would take more notice of this and start enforcing
>the rules of the road. It is only a matter of time before one of
>these idiots ends up getting flattened by a car, and I'm sad to say
>that my sympathy will be with the driver of the car.

I don't know that I would restrict that statement to cyclist; it seems
a fair number of motorists in my stretch of the woods have death
wishes as well. That's one of the reasons I don't give a **** that 110
idiots check out on a daily basis. In fact, it's my personal belief
that society as a whole would improve if that number grew to 1100.


--

People don't confuse me with someone who cares.

 

[Nate Nagel]

Brent P wrote:
> In article <023d6d40-b1d6-41af-9b47-58f3f334259d@n77g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>On Feb 27, 3:54 pm, [email protected] (Brent P)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>For example, regarding stop signs: I live across the street from
>>>>one. Fewer than half the drivers bother to stop. The majority roll
>>>>right through. The potential harm from a motorist doing that is
>>>>hundreds of times worse than that from a cyclist.
>>>
>>>Is it one of those stop signs you had put up to slow people down? If so,
>>>that's the reason people don't respect it.
>>
>>Brent, you've apparently edited our previous discussions to meet your
>>preconceptions.
>>
>>First, I've never, not once, been involved in putting in a stop sign
>>to slow people down. Neither has the bike-pedestrian committee I've
>>been a member of.
>>
>>Second, the stop sign is at a T intersection, and visibility isn't
>>particularly good, due to shrubbery. It's a very normal and practical
>>place for a stop sign. No reasonable person would doubt its
>>appropriateness. (True, the local teeny-bopper would disagree, the
>>one with the daddy-bought car with the "aerodynamic" wing and fart-can
>>muffler, but those boys are pretty unreasonable.)
>
>
>
>>>That said we've been over this before and you didn't believe it then and
>>>I doubt you do now.
>>
>>We've been over this before, but you've forgotten most of it.
>
>
> Oh yeah, that's right you achieve the same ends (rapid acceleration and
> braking point to point) with frequent speed humps instead of stop signs.
>

Please, PLEASE let us not resurrect that thread. I remember it well,
and it was definitely a case of an irresistable force of reason meeting
an immovable object of stubbornness and irrationality.

nate

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

 

[N8N]

On Feb 27, 8:22 pm, David Poole <[email protected]> wrote:
> N8N wrote:
> >On Feb 27, 10:58 am, [email protected] wrote:
> >> On Feb 27, 1:26 am, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
>
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> > He was wearing one of those bright orange hunting vests and you couldn't
> >> > miss seeing him. Why don't they all do that or at least paint their helmet
> >> > hunter orange?
>
> >> If you have trouble seeing ordinary (non-orange) cyclists or
> >> pedestrians in plenty of time, you're not driving responsibly. Try
> >> slowing down and paying more attention.
>
> >> - Frank Krygowski
>
> >Yes, all of the cyclists in my area are responsible and never, ever do
> >stuff like riding after dark without lights and wearing dark and/or
> >non-reflective clothing. (snort)
>
> >If it didn't seem like the vast majority of cyclists that I see had
> >death wishes (in addition to the above, I actually saw a cyclist at
> >least slow down - not stop, just slow - for a stop sign the other
> >day. It was noteworthy because that was the first time I'd seen that
> >happen in months,) you might have a point, but my general impression
> >of them is that they are serious hazards to themselves and others, and
> >I wish that police would take more notice of this and start enforcing
> >the rules of the road. It is only a matter of time before one of
> >these idiots ends up getting flattened by a car, and I'm sad to say
> >that my sympathy will be with the driver of the car.
>
> I don't know that I would restrict that statement to cyclist; it seems
> a fair number of motorists in my stretch of the woods have death
> wishes as well. That's one of the reasons I don't give a **** that 110
> idiots check out on a daily basis. In fact, it's my personal belief
> that society as a whole would improve if that number grew to 1100.

As awful as the skills/behavior/courtesy/awareness of the average
driver around here are, the cyclists are significantly worse. I can't
honestly say that all motorists blow stop signs or half of them drive
around after dark with their lights off, for example.

But you're right, there's a whole lotta stupid on both sides. Just
more so with cyclists, it seems. Not sure why; I don't actually know
any serious cyclists in this area personally, so I haven't had the
opportunity to try to figure it out - and to be perfectly honest,
their behavior is kind of a disincentive to take up cycling seriously
again, although this area is actually more bike-friendly than any I've
lived in the last decade or so.

nate

 

[Zoot Katz]

On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 20:23:24 -0500, Nate Nagel <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>Please, PLEASE let us not resurrect that thread. I remember it well,
>and it was definitely a case of an irresistable force of reason meeting
>an immovable object of stubbornness and irrationality.
>
>nate

So you still don't understand how those things work.
Perhaps if they were renamed "slow humps" you might get it.
--
zk

 

[[email protected]]

On Feb 27, 7:46 pm, Nate Nagel <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > Slow down and think about it again, Nate. The jeans and dark shirt
> > should not be part of the equation. If it's night, a driver has a
> > right to expect cyclists to have lights, and possibly reflectors.
> > (That depends a bit on the jurisdiction.) But night or day, a
> > motorist has no right to complain about jeans and a dark shirt. They
> > are legal. It's up to you to watch for others on the road; how
> > they're dressed should not matter.
>
> It does if they have neither lights nor reflectors.

Wow. You're having a hard time with these concepts!

It's the lights you may complain about. The clothing is nowhere near
as significant as the lights. That's why the laws universally require
lights, and never require clothing.

There must be _somebody_ who can explain that to you!

> >> If I hit another car because the driver did something illegal,
> >>or hit a cyclist because he did something illegal, I still hit
> >>something. I'm still inconvenienced...
>
> > Sorry about that. But the world's been made too convenient for
> > motorists, to the detriment of everyone else. Besides, I doubt you
> > can cite five examples in the last five years where a motorist damaged
> > his precious car due to avoiding a cyclist's illegal move.
>
> Hell, I've probably *SEEN* five bent up bikes laying in the middle of
> the road, with cops, ambulances, etc. in that time period.

Well, yet again, your world seems to be extremely different from mine,
and from all the people I know. I suspect that's because yours
includes a large measure of fantasy.

But feel free to prove me wrong! Just dig out citations we can
check. Links to newspaper articles, or accident statistics will do
fine.

> >>100% of cyclists blatantly ignore stop signs.
>
> > Wrong.
>
> Come ride with me someday. You'll see I'm right.

Sorry, but according to the rules of logic, it takes only one
counterexample to prove you wrong. The cyclists you claim to observe
do not make up the total population of cyclists. Again, if that's not
clear, find someone who can explain it to you.

> >>But my car will still be damaged.
>
> > Well, obviously, that's what the entire universe revolves
> > around!
>
> It does to me.

What a small, simple world you inhabit!

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Paul M. Hobson]

>> On Feb 27, 3:15 pm, N8N <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> 100% of cyclists blatantly ignore stop signs.
>>
> [email protected] wrote:
>> Wrong.

Nate Nagel wrote:
> Come ride with me someday. You'll see I'm right.

So Nate, you're saying that you run stop signs when you're on your bike
too? Seems a little odd considering it irks you so much.

How about this: While driving, do you ever speed (even 1 mph counts)?
Do you ever roll through stop signs?

..
..
..

I thought so.

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

 

[Nate Nagel]

[email protected] wrote:
> On Feb 27, 7:46 pm, Nate Nagel <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>[email protected] wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Slow down and think about it again, Nate. The jeans and dark shirt
>>>should not be part of the equation. If it's night, a driver has a
>>>right to expect cyclists to have lights, and possibly reflectors.
>>>(That depends a bit on the jurisdiction.) But night or day, a
>>>motorist has no right to complain about jeans and a dark shirt. They
>>>are legal. It's up to you to watch for others on the road; how
>>>they're dressed should not matter.
>>
>>It does if they have neither lights nor reflectors.
>
>
> Wow. You're having a hard time with these concepts!
>
> It's the lights you may complain about. The clothing is nowhere near
> as significant as the lights. That's why the laws universally require
> lights, and never require clothing.
>
> There must be _somebody_ who can explain that to you!

Ok then. Why do cyclists consistently not use lights, AND don't even
make a half-assed gesture towards safety by wearing clothing that might
be visible?

Is that better?

>
>>>>If I hit another car because the driver did something illegal,
>>>>or hit a cyclist because he did something illegal, I still hit
>>>>something. I'm still inconvenienced...
>>
>>>Sorry about that. But the world's been made too convenient for
>>>motorists, to the detriment of everyone else. Besides, I doubt you
>>>can cite five examples in the last five years where a motorist damaged
>>>his precious car due to avoiding a cyclist's illegal move.
>>
>>Hell, I've probably *SEEN* five bent up bikes laying in the middle of
>>the road, with cops, ambulances, etc. in that time period.
>
>
> Well, yet again, your world seems to be extremely different from mine,
> and from all the people I know.

Well, maybe you live somewhere where cyclists are reasonable. I don't.

> I suspect that's because yours
> includes a large measure of fantasy.

I suspect you're an asshole that likes to throw out unsupported assertions.

> But feel free to prove me wrong! Just dig out citations we can
> check. Links to newspaper articles, or accident statistics will do
> fine.


You know, after the last crash of which I saw the aftermath, I actually
attempted to find a news article the next day and it went completely
unreported. (I was honestly curious as to the well being of the
cyclist, because the bike looked pretty well beat up. Due to the
presence of large numbers of police officers and an ambulance and fire
truck, I'm guessing that it didn't fall off of someone's bike rack.)
Similarly with a pedestrian accident that I saw only a few blocks from
my house. Apparently they aren't news-worthy.

>
>>>>100% of cyclists blatantly ignore stop signs.
>>
>>>Wrong.
>>
>>Come ride with me someday. You'll see I'm right.
>
>
> Sorry, but according to the rules of logic, it takes only one
> counterexample to prove you wrong. The cyclists you claim to observe
> do not make up the total population of cyclists. Again, if that's not
> clear, find someone who can explain it to you.

I do believe that my initial statement said something like "my
observations are 100%." As in, since I have moved to this area I have
yet to see one single cyclist stop for a stop sign. It's been over a
year, if there is even a significant minority of cyclists that actually
obey traffic laws you'd think I'd have seen one by now.

>
>
>>>>But my car will still be damaged.
>>
>>> Well, obviously, that's what the entire universe revolves
>>>around!
>>
>>It does to me.
>
>
> What a small, simple world you inhabit!
>

Well, why don't I just bash the door of your car with a hammer then.
You shouldn't mind, since it's not your bike or your person, right?

Most people will value the integrity of their own posessions over the
well being of a negligent stranger. They just don't care to say it in
public. I'm not particularly ashamed of my view; my greatest concern is
simply avoiding collecting one of these idiots.

nate


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

 

[Nate Nagel]

Zoot Katz wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 20:23:24 -0500, Nate Nagel <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Please, PLEASE let us not resurrect that thread. I remember it well,
>>and it was definitely a case of an irresistable force of reason meeting
>>an immovable object of stubbornness and irrationality.
>>
>>nate
>
>
> So you still don't understand how those things work.
> Perhaps if they were renamed "slow humps" you might get it.

I understand perfectly well how they work, they don't.

And that will be my last word on the subject, as I believe didn't I say
"please let us not resurrect this thread?"

nate

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

 

[Ed Pirrero]

On Feb 27, 6:05 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Feb 27, 7:46 pm, Nate Nagel <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > Slow down and think about it again, Nate.  The jeans and dark shirt
> > > should not be part of the equation.  If it's night, a driver has a
> > > right to expect cyclists to have lights, and possibly reflectors.
> > > (That depends a bit on the jurisdiction.)  But night or day, a
> > > motorist has no right to complain about jeans and a dark shirt.  They
> > > are legal.  It's up to you to watch for others on the road; how
> > > they're dressed should not matter.
>
> > It does if they have neither lights nor reflectors.
>
> Wow.  You're having a hard time with these concepts!

No, Frank, he really doesn't. You're being a jerk, and pedantic to
boot.

If being seen in low-light conditions isn't important, why does
Colorado Cyclist sell Day-Glo orange reflectorized vests?

Why do cycling shoes have reflectorized materials in them? Why do
people attact reflector tape to their helmets or caps?

What you wear can make a difference. Suggesting it doesn't matter is
non-sensical.

> > Hell, I've probably *SEEN* five bent up bikes laying in the middle of
> > the road, with cops, ambulances, etc. in that time period.
>
> Well, yet again, your world seems to be extremely different from mine,
> and from all the people I know.

So that implies that your view is correct, and his is wrong? Nice
logic use, Frank.

>  I suspect that's because yours
> includes a large measure of fantasy.

Easy to be an e-thug hiding behind your keyboard, eh, Frank?


> > Come ride with me someday.  You'll see I'm right.
>
> Sorry, but according to the rules of logic, it takes only one
> counterexample to prove you wrong.

Yes. Now prove that he has ever seen one bicyclist stop. Go ahead,
it's *your* proposal, after all.

From some of the biking behavior I've seen, it's not outside the realm
of possiblity that he has never actually seen a bicyclist stop at a
light or a sign. Unlikely, but not impossible.

>  The cyclists you claim to observe
> do not make up the total population of cyclists.

He's not claiming he's seen that. Straw man, Frank.

E.P.