In article <
[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
> Oh, you're being a usenet assclown... I wasn't *****ing about seeing
> properly lit bicyclists or peds of any kind.
Then please restate your argument, because you seem to have changed it
from "unlighted wrong ways" to "everyday physics" to who knows what. If
you just hate other people, simply say so. Classic road rage like that
is nothing new, although you seem to be going to elaborate lengths to
justify it. Again, and concisely, what's your issue?
> This whole thread is apparently a bunch of militant bicyclists (and I
> thought I was a militant bicyclist, guess I was wrong) who are defending
> all sorts of poor bicycle riding with excuses.
Then you aren't reading the thread closely enough. All I've defended is
the reality of the road, which I maintain the law does not adequately
represent. Yes, the reality is that some people on bicycles don't
strictly obey the laws that are meant to cover cars, though they are
usually the laws that cars themselves often do not obey.
> >> >> Um no. It's called conservation of energy and conservation of momentum.
> >>
> >> > I don't understand what that has to do with refuting my point.
> >>
> >> You said they learned it from drivers. I am saying it's part of normal
> >> everyday physics and is not a behavior learned from anyone else. Most
> >> people figure it out for themselves.
>
> > Just because it is "everyday physics" has nothing to do with learning
> > the rules of the road.
>
> You stated they learned the rolling stop from car drivers.... *sigh* pick
> something and stick with it.
I have. It's you who seemingly can't stay focussed long enough to
follow an argument through. My statement is entirely consistent with
the notion that we approach stop signs based on our general experience
of how vehicles approach stop signs, not based on some abstract notion
of physics that hardly matters to people who are burning dinosaurs to
move.
> > As I stated, but you so neatly clipped, car
> > drivers aren't burdened by the physics of accelerating their massive
> > vehicles, so they should have learned to stop all the time. We see
> > mommy and daddy doing it so much that, by the time we get bikes, we do
> > it too, with the slight added bonus that we get less tired.
>
> I guess you've never driven a manual transmission car or in snow. Take a
> car with RWD and a front mounted engine. Put 3 inches of snow on the
> ground. Now come to complete stop and compare that to just barely rolling
> with regards to getting going again.
So, what, now you've switched your argument to "special dispensation"?
Why not give a cyclist, someone who actually serves as the engine to
their vehicle, some extra consideration, too? I'm going to guess that
you think your 0.001% scenario somehow justifies the other 99.999% of
incidents where cars roll stops. I'm going to guess you'd go so far as
to ***** about a cyclist, additionally exposed to the cold, rolling
through that same stop you seem willing to forgive the car for. Please
stop going to the effort of imagining fanciful edge conditions and deal
with everyday reality.
> >> > In fact, Mr. Physics, please support your interest in conservation by
> >> > actually working out at what speeds a 4000lb car rolling a stop sign has
> >> > the same kinetic energy and momentum as a 200lb cyclist just blowing
> >> > through a stop at 15mph.
> >>
> >> A car driver could say that it is ok for him to run stop signs because a
> >> 40,000lb semi will cause more damage in a crash. It's a silly argument.
> >
> > So, what, unwilling to do a little simple math? It's particularly funny
> > that you're backpedaling from *your* argument that it's an issue of
> > physics.
>
> I never made any such argument. You must be entirely daft. I stated that
> the 'rolling stop' is something that doesn't have to be learned from
> another person, it's natural. That's not a physics argument. DUh.
You are certainly strong in "DUh". Your argument was of conservation of
energy/momentum, which is definitely a physics argument. But since stop
signs don't spring up at intersections naturally (or maybe you think
they're some kind of flower?
, your position on that is irrelevant
unless you do the math and make it meaningful. So make up your mind:
either people, regardless of the vehicle, are supposed to be strictly
obeying the laws of road or they are supposed to be strictly obeying the
laws of physics.
> > I'm quite willing to have the law changed to take into account
> > the kinetic energy or momentum of *any* vehicle that doesn't come to a
> > complete stop. I know that doesn't support your silly desire to blow
> > through stops in your car, but it's certainly more fair than your
> > misguided notion that bikes are the scourge of road physics.
>
> You're just being an idiot, probably on purpose. I have no energy for
> this stupidity of yours.
Yes, it is so much easier to be dismissive when you can't support your
multiple specious arguments. You seem to belong to that special class
of people who use "stupid" to label things they're not capable of
understanding.
--
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com,
heapnode.com, localhost, ntli.net, teranews.com, vif.com, x-privat.org
