The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicleare long gone



F

Festivus

Guest
[email protected] wrote:

>
> So, what is "hugely beneficial" about that stripe? It's never done me
> any good that I could tell.
>


Well, at least here in Oregon, it is illegal for a car to drive or park
in the bike lane (with a few exceptions, like for mail delivery). Not
that you'd notice from the way drivers disobey the restriction, but
that's an enforcement problem. With a striped bike path, you are
guaranteed a section of pavement that you do not have to share with a
car except at intersections.

I routinely ride the Cornell road corridor between Hillsboro and
Portland, almost the entire length of which is a striped bike lane.
Aside from the inevitable road debris that accumulates there, it is the
easiest section of road for a biker to travel - which is why I use it.
 
T

Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman

Guest
Brent P wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman wrote:
>> Brent P? wrote:
>>> ...
>>> Well wooptie do for you. Now ride the bike lanes that aren't the
>>> exception to the rule. I've seen substandard bicycle lanes in
>>> IL,WI,Iowa,MN,and HI while seeing none of these magical well designed
>>> bicycle lanes you and the rest of the zealots speak of. I see glorified
>>> shoulders (HI, Iowa, WI) and bike lanes carved out the pavement margins
>>> where nobody in their right mind would ride (IL, MN)

>
>> Hey, those "bicycle lanes" are "needed" for motorists going 30+ mph over
>> the speed limit to use to pass on the right!

>
> A car wouldn't fit in the ones I'm familiar with.


In the little city to the north, the "bicycle lanes" often have a bus
stop/parking lane to the right.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.

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

Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman

Guest
Bill Shatzer wrote:
> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>> Brent P? wrote:

>
>>> In article <[email protected]>, Lobby Dosser wrote:

>
>>>> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:

>
>>>>> The health benefits of bicycling are well proven.

>
>>>> Are they? It is not possible to get those benefits on a stationary
>>>> bicycle?

>
>>> How about you go be a gerbil? I integrate excerise into my daily life.

>
>> Bicycle outside will provide mental health benefits that the "hamster
>> wheel" will not. Improved mental health boosts the immune system.

>
>> Gerbils are much happier if their environment is a couple hundred
>> square feet instead of 2 square feet.

>
> How does one measure gerbil happiness?


Observation.

> Are gerbils even capable of "happiness"?


Yes. They also get very upset if one of their group dies or goes missing.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.

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

Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman

Guest
Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S wrote:
> On Aug 24, 8:29 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> John S? wrote:
>>> ...
>>> Google is well designed and works great. You need to get a more up to
>>> date interface. One that allows you to scroll easily between messages
>>> and keep things in context. It will reduce the chances of your
>>> becoming confused in the future on simple topics like this....

>> When my news-feed temporarily went down, I reverted to Gurgle Gropes
>> [1], and the slow speed, screwed up format of attribution names, munging
>> of headers and worst of all, the limits on how many posts could be sent
>> annoyed the hell out of me.
>>
>> [1] gene-speak for Google Groups.

>
> glad you like it, campesino
>

Campesino? Huh?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.

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

Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman

Guest
Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Lobby Dosser WHO? wrote:
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Aug 24, 7:32 pm, Lobby Dosser <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Do you wear your seatbelt when riding in a car? AFIK, every
>>>>> state requires that you do and fines you if they catch you
>>>>> unbelted.
>>>> Don't compare bike helmets and seat belts. They are much different
>>>> in their effectiveness.
>>> But no different in the mandatory nature of the laws.
>>>
>>>> Seat belts are designed and tested to work in 35 mph head-on
>>>> collisions, which are realistic replications of actual car crashes.
>>> Wrong.
>>>
>>>> Bike helmets are designed and tested to protect only a disembodied
>>>> head (no body mass driving the collision) in a simple linear
>>>> collision (not the more damaging rotational accelerations) at a mere
>>>> 14 mph (much less than the impact speed of, say, a "left hook"
>>>> collision with a car).
>>> You want to volunteer for testing?
>>>
>>>> This standard was strongly criticized at its inception as being far
>>>> too weak for any real protection. It's designed only to replicate a
>>>> "Laugh-In Fall," but with no body. But Snell engineers correctly
>>>> claimed that anything that would protect against a really serious
>>>> crash would be unwearable.
>>> So MC helmets are worthless....

>> Frank was talking about testing standards for BICYCLE helmets. WTF do
>> MOTORCYCLE helmets have to do with that?

>
> Apparently they are unwearable.


Motorcycle helmets are unwearable on a HUMAN POWERED BICYCLE in warm to
hot weather for extended periods. Duh.

>> An average motorcycle helmet weighs about 8 times as much as a foam
>> bicycle hat. Ya think that might make for some difference in
>> effectiveness? And yes, a helmet that is perfectly comfortable to wear
>> on a motorcycle in summer would be unusable on a bicycle in anything
>> but winter weather.

>
> You've done it?


Done what? Indefinite pronouns strike again!

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.

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

Lobby Dosser

Guest
"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Lobby Dosser WHO? wrote:
>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Aug 24, 7:32 pm, Lobby Dosser <[email protected]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you wear your seatbelt when riding in a car? AFIK, every
>>>>>> state requires that you do and fines you if they catch you
>>>>>> unbelted.
>>>>> Don't compare bike helmets and seat belts. They are much
>>>>> different in their effectiveness.
>>>> But no different in the mandatory nature of the laws.
>>>>
>>>>> Seat belts are designed and tested to work in 35 mph head-on
>>>>> collisions, which are realistic replications of actual car
>>>>> crashes.
>>>> Wrong.
>>>>
>>>>> Bike helmets are designed and tested to protect only a disembodied
>>>>> head (no body mass driving the collision) in a simple linear
>>>>> collision (not the more damaging rotational accelerations) at a
>>>>> mere 14 mph (much less than the impact speed of, say, a "left
>>>>> hook" collision with a car).
>>>> You want to volunteer for testing?
>>>>
>>>>> This standard was strongly criticized at its inception as being
>>>>> far too weak for any real protection. It's designed only to
>>>>> replicate a "Laugh-In Fall," but with no body. But Snell
>>>>> engineers correctly claimed that anything that would protect
>>>>> against a really serious crash would be unwearable.
>>>> So MC helmets are worthless....
>>> Frank was talking about testing standards for BICYCLE helmets. WTF
>>> do MOTORCYCLE helmets have to do with that?

>>
>> Apparently they are unwearable.

>
> Motorcycle helmets are unwearable on a HUMAN POWERED BICYCLE in warm
> to hot weather for extended periods. Duh.
>
>>> An average motorcycle helmet weighs about 8 times as much as a foam
>>> bicycle hat. Ya think that might make for some difference in
>>> effectiveness? And yes, a helmet that is perfectly comfortable to
>>> wear on a motorcycle in summer would be unusable on a bicycle in
>>> anything but winter weather.

>>
>> You've done it?

>
> Done what? Indefinite pronouns strike again!
>


Worn a MC helmet while bicycling, you bloody fool.
 
T

Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman

Guest
Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lobby Dosser WHO? wrote:
>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Aug 24, 7:32 pm, Lobby Dosser <[email protected]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you wear your seatbelt when riding in a car? AFIK, every
>>>>>>> state requires that you do and fines you if they catch you
>>>>>>> unbelted.
>>>>>> Don't compare bike helmets and seat belts. They are much
>>>>>> different in their effectiveness.
>>>>> But no different in the mandatory nature of the laws.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Seat belts are designed and tested to work in 35 mph head-on
>>>>>> collisions, which are realistic replications of actual car
>>>>>> crashes.
>>>>> Wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bike helmets are designed and tested to protect only a disembodied
>>>>>> head (no body mass driving the collision) in a simple linear
>>>>>> collision (not the more damaging rotational accelerations) at a
>>>>>> mere 14 mph (much less than the impact speed of, say, a "left
>>>>>> hook" collision with a car).
>>>>> You want to volunteer for testing?
>>>>>
>>>>>> This standard was strongly criticized at its inception as being
>>>>>> far too weak for any real protection. It's designed only to
>>>>>> replicate a "Laugh-In Fall," but with no body. But Snell
>>>>>> engineers correctly claimed that anything that would protect
>>>>>> against a really serious crash would be unwearable.
>>>>> So MC helmets are worthless....
>>>> Frank was talking about testing standards for BICYCLE helmets. WTF
>>>> do MOTORCYCLE helmets have to do with that?
>>> Apparently they are unwearable.

>> Motorcycle helmets are unwearable on a HUMAN POWERED BICYCLE in warm
>> to hot weather for extended periods. Duh.
>>
>>>> An average motorcycle helmet weighs about 8 times as much as a foam
>>>> bicycle hat. Ya think that might make for some difference in
>>>> effectiveness? And yes, a helmet that is perfectly comfortable to
>>>> wear on a motorcycle in summer would be unusable on a bicycle in
>>>> anything but winter weather.
>>> You've done it?

>> Done what? Indefinite pronouns strike again!
>>

>
> Worn a MC helmet while bicycling, you bloody fool.


No, I am not that stupid. The motorcycle helmet makes my head
significantly warmer, so its effect on a day when wearing even a bicycle
foam hat feels almost to much would be obvious. Well, maybe not obvious
to "Lobby Dosser".

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
On Aug 27, 2:16 pm, Festivus <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > So, what is "hugely beneficial" about that stripe? It's never done me
> > any good that I could tell.

>
> Well, at least here in Oregon, it is illegal for a car to drive or park
> in the bike lane (with a few exceptions, like for mail delivery). Not
> that you'd notice from the way drivers disobey the restriction, but
> that's an enforcement problem. With a striped bike path, you are
> guaranteed a section of pavement that you do not have to share with a
> car except at intersections.
>
> I routinely ride the Cornell road corridor between Hillsboro and
> Portland, almost the entire length of which is a striped bike lane.
> Aside from the inevitable road debris that accumulates there, it is the
> easiest section of road for a biker to travel - which is why I use it.


Interesting! Because even though I'm not from that area, I've ridden
that road. The last time I rode it from Hillsboro to downtown
Portland, it was to attend the Blues Festival one year.

And interestingly, it was on that road - not far from the wooded part
of the West Hills, IIRC - that a couple dudes in a compact car yelled
obscenities at me and told me to "Get off the *#@! road!!" despite my
being in the bike lane.

But anyway: What is the benefit of the stripe? If the stripe were
magically removed, you'd still have pavement wide enough for safe
passing. You would not have the glass and "inevitable road debris"
because random motion of cars, when bikes are absent, would sweep it
clean. You could keep cars from parking on the pavement by putting up
signs that say .... wait for it.... "No Parking."

And your statement that you don't have to share with cars "except at
intersections" should give you a clue as to another weakness. It's
specifically at intersections that bike lanes confuse things, and it's
specifically at intersections that most car-bike crashes happen.

I'll admit that Portland's bike lanes are better designed than those
I've ridden in other places - like those in Columbus, Ohio for
example. But that makes them only less objectionable, not beneficial.

And as always, the benefits compared to unstriped pavement of the same
width seem imaginary. Certainly, I have no trouble cycling on those
Portland area streets that have no bike lanes, provided they have
equivalent width.

- Frank Krygowski
 
L

Lobby Dosser

Guest
"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Lobby Dosser WHO? wrote:
>>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Aug 24, 7:32 pm, Lobby Dosser
>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you wear your seatbelt when riding in a car? AFIK, every
>>>>>>>> state requires that you do and fines you if they catch you
>>>>>>>> unbelted.
>>>>>>> Don't compare bike helmets and seat belts. They are much
>>>>>>> different in their effectiveness.
>>>>>> But no different in the mandatory nature of the laws.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Seat belts are designed and tested to work in 35 mph head-on
>>>>>>> collisions, which are realistic replications of actual car
>>>>>>> crashes.
>>>>>> Wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bike helmets are designed and tested to protect only a
>>>>>>> disembodied head (no body mass driving the collision) in a
>>>>>>> simple linear collision (not the more damaging rotational
>>>>>>> accelerations) at a mere 14 mph (much less than the impact speed
>>>>>>> of, say, a "left hook" collision with a car).
>>>>>> You want to volunteer for testing?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This standard was strongly criticized at its inception as being
>>>>>>> far too weak for any real protection. It's designed only to
>>>>>>> replicate a "Laugh-In Fall," but with no body. But Snell
>>>>>>> engineers correctly claimed that anything that would protect
>>>>>>> against a really serious crash would be unwearable.
>>>>>> So MC helmets are worthless....
>>>>> Frank was talking about testing standards for BICYCLE helmets. WTF
>>>>> do MOTORCYCLE helmets have to do with that?
>>>> Apparently they are unwearable.
>>> Motorcycle helmets are unwearable on a HUMAN POWERED BICYCLE in warm
>>> to hot weather for extended periods. Duh.
>>>
>>>>> An average motorcycle helmet weighs about 8 times as much as a
>>>>> foam bicycle hat. Ya think that might make for some difference in
>>>>> effectiveness? And yes, a helmet that is perfectly comfortable to
>>>>> wear on a motorcycle in summer would be unusable on a bicycle in
>>>>> anything but winter weather.
>>>> You've done it?
>>> Done what? Indefinite pronouns strike again!
>>>

>>
>> Worn a MC helmet while bicycling, you bloody fool.

>
> No, I am not that stupid. The motorcycle helmet makes my head
> significantly warmer, so its effect on a day when wearing even a
> bicycle foam hat feels almost to much would be obvious. Well, maybe
> not obvious to "Lobby Dosser".
>


So, which is it? Yes you tried or no you did not?
 
J

Just zis Guy, you know?

Guest
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 06:24:37 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<[email protected]> said in <[email protected]>:

>> It's
>> specifically at intersections that bike lanes confuse things,


>If one is Easily confused. Apparently you are.


Ah, another subject on which you pontificate aggressively without
the benefit of any actual knowledge. Might have known.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
 
J

Just zis Guy, you know?

Guest
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 22:45:14 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<[email protected]> said in <[email protected]>:

>> Like when we defeated a helmet law in the UK, you mean?


>Prove it.


No helmet law in this country.

>>>> Like drivers taking personal responsibility for the substantial
>>>> danger they pose to others, you mean?
>>>They do. Insurance and Civil Suits.

>> That's offloading the responsibility onto others.


>No, it is not. Apparently you don't understand Insurance. As you are a
>Brit, I can understand why. Do look it up.


Sure, we have no compulsory insurance when driving. Oh, wait, we
do! Amazing.

>> Some countries
>> have laws which place the burden of evidence on the driver to prove
>> they were not at fault when a non-driver is injured.


>Some countries have some bloody silly laws.


Yup, and some have really sensible ones like those which place the
onus on the person bringing all the danger to the situation. Ever
looked at Holland's cyclist injury rates? Vastly lower than the US.

>> The thing is, though, that the majority of serious head trauma is
>> suffered by car drivers. If your version of personal responsibility
>> were a valid one, then you should be exhorting car drivers to wear
>> helmets.


>Why?


Because the vast majority of serious head trauma is suffered by
motorists. And actually motorists can get helmets which *are*
designed for that kind of crash.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
 
P

Picachu is a recovering sex slave

Guest
On Aug 28, 12:23 am, Lobby Dosser <[email protected]>
wrote:
> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Lobby Dosser wrote:
> >> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> >>> Lobby Dosser wrote:
> >>>> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> >>>>> Lobby Dosser WHO? wrote:
> >>>>>> [email protected] wrote:

>
> >>>>>>> On Aug 24, 7:32 pm, Lobby Dosser
> >>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>> Do you wear your seatbelt when riding in a car? AFIK, every
> >>>>>>>> state requires that you do and fines you if they catch you
> >>>>>>>> unbelted.
> >>>>>>> Don't compare bike helmets and seat belts. They are much
> >>>>>>> different in their effectiveness.
> >>>>>> But no different in the mandatory nature of the laws.

>
> >>>>>>> Seat belts are designed and tested to work in 35 mph head-on
> >>>>>>> collisions, which are realistic replications of actual car
> >>>>>>> crashes.
> >>>>>> Wrong.

>
> >>>>>>> Bike helmets are designed and tested to protect only a
> >>>>>>> disembodied head (no body mass driving the collision) in a
> >>>>>>> simple linear collision (not the more damaging rotational
> >>>>>>> accelerations) at a mere 14 mph (much less than the impact speed
> >>>>>>> of, say, a "left hook" collision with a car).
> >>>>>> You want to volunteer for testing?

>
> >>>>>>> This standard was strongly criticized at its inception as being
> >>>>>>> far too weak for any real protection. It's designed only to
> >>>>>>> replicate a "Laugh-In Fall," but with no body. But Snell
> >>>>>>> engineers correctly claimed that anything that would protect
> >>>>>>> against a really serious crash would be unwearable.
> >>>>>> So MC helmets are worthless....
> >>>>> Frank was talking about testing standards for BICYCLE helmets. WTF
> >>>>> do MOTORCYCLE helmets have to do with that?
> >>>> Apparently they are unwearable.
> >>> Motorcycle helmets are unwearable on a HUMAN POWERED BICYCLE in warm
> >>> to hot weather for extended periods. Duh.

>
> >>>>> An average motorcycle helmet weighs about 8 times as much as a
> >>>>> foam bicycle hat. Ya think that might make for some difference in
> >>>>> effectiveness? And yes, a helmet that is perfectly comfortable to
> >>>>> wear on a motorcycle in summer would be unusable on a bicycle in
> >>>>> anything but winter weather.
> >>>> You've done it?
> >>> Done what? Indefinite pronouns strike again!

>
> >> Worn a MC helmet while bicycling, you bloody fool.

>
> > No, I am not that stupid. The motorcycle helmet makes my head
> > significantly warmer, so its effect on a day when wearing even a
> > bicycle foam hat feels almost to much would be obvious. Well, maybe
> > not obvious to "Lobby Dosser".

>
> So, which is it? Yes you tried or no you did not?


He should wear it in the winter only! ROTFLMAO++
 
P

Picachu is a recovering sex slave

Guest
On Aug 28, 12:24 am, Lobby Dosser <[email protected]>
wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > It's
> > specifically at intersections that bike lanes confuse things,

>
> If one is Easily confused. Apparently you are.


He's not CONFUSED, he's OUT OF QUARTERS!
 
A

Arif Khokar

Guest
amakyonin wrote:
> On Aug 24, 7:18 pm, Arif Khokar <[email protected]> wrote:


>> Oh, you mean I shouldn't take the lane with a nice and beautiful bike
>> like like this: <http://filebox.vt.edu/~aikhokar/misc/bike_lane.jpg>?


> People like Bill enjoy being stomped on (right hooked) and won't
> bother to stand up for their rights. Taking the lane *when
> appropriate* is every bicyclists right. No bicyclist should have, or
> feel the need, to compromise their safety for the convenience of a
> cager. A motor vehicle driver will not lose any time in reaching their
> destination while waiting a few seconds to safely pass a bicyclist.


A competent driver won't lose time waiting to pass a cyclist because
they're much easier to pass, as compared to wider vehicles. I give
cyclists a full lane when passing them.

Getting back to the picture I posted, the point I was trying to make is
that the bike lane pictured is too narrow to ride in safely, therefore I
take the lane.
 
J

John David Galt

Guest
Arif Khokar wrote:
> A competent driver won't lose time waiting to pass a cyclist because
> they're much easier to pass, as compared to wider vehicles. I give
> cyclists a full lane when passing them.


A competent driver won't lose time waiting to pass a cyclist because he
won't wait. No one, regardless of mode of transport, has business on
the road unless he's willing to use the road in the way that allows the
maximum number of other people through. Those who see it as drivers'
problem when they delay drivers SHOULD be run down, or at least beat up,
until they and others like them learn their lesson.
 
Paul Berg writes:

> In Oregon we require motorcyclists to have a driver's license with a
> motorcycle endorsement in order to drive on the public roads. This
> supposedly insure the public that the motorcyclists know the rules
> of the road and has the ability to operate a motorcycle safely. It
> is also required, in Oregon, that they wear an approved motorcycle
> helmet and have liability insurance. Motorcycles are required to be
> registered and meet equipment and safety standards. And, I'm sure
> most other states have the same or similar requirements.


> With the increasing number of bicyclists using bicycles as a means
> of commuter and commercial transportation, it is time that we take a
> serious look at license, helmet, safety, equipment and insurance
> requirements for those bicyclists who wish to ride in high volume
> traffic areas.


> The days when the bicycle was basically a recreational vehicle for
> children on neighborhood streets is long gone. And, now our laws
> should catch up the present situation. We now need to insured the
> public that the bicyclists and bicycles in the high traffic areas
> are meeting some type of minimum requirements as the motorists,
> motorcyclists and their vehicles do.


With increasing numbers of pedestrians crossing streets and walking on
roads in urban areas, registration and approved helmets because should
be required, otherwise they are a liability to vehicle operators in
front of whom they might step.

This kind of thinking fits the GWB big brother syndrome but where will
it stop? Guantanamo?

Jobst Brandt
 
L

Lobby Dosser

Guest
John David Galt <[email protected]> wrote:

> Arif Khokar wrote:
>> A competent driver won't lose time waiting to pass a cyclist because
>> they're much easier to pass, as compared to wider vehicles. I give
>> cyclists a full lane when passing them.

>
> A competent driver won't lose time waiting to pass a cyclist because
> he won't wait. No one, regardless of mode of transport, has business
> on the road unless he's willing to use the road in the way that allows
> the maximum number of other people through. Those who see it as
> drivers' problem when they delay drivers SHOULD be run down, or at
> least beat up, until they and others like them learn their lesson.
>


4.3
 
T

The poster last in PDX in 2003

Guest
On Sep 1, 11:07 am, John David Galt <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Arif Khokar wrote:
> > A competent driver won't lose time waiting to pass a cyclist because
> > they're much easier to pass, as compared to wider vehicles. I give
> > cyclists a full lane when passing them.

>
> A competent driver won't lose time waiting to pass a cyclist because he
> won't wait. No one, regardless of mode of transport, has business on
> the road unless he's willing to use the road in the way that allows the
> maximum number of other people through. Those who see it as drivers'
> problem when they delay drivers SHOULD be run down, or at least beat up,
> until they and others like them learn their lesson.


I limit that to a couple lights where I NEED to be in the middle of
things and have been in peril to many times. Yes, I whoop and holler
if need be as bleeding is more annoying and swearing worse.
 
T

The poster last in PDX in 2003

Guest
On Sep 1, 1:45 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> Paul Berg writes:
> > In Oregon we require motorcyclists to have a driver's license with a
> > motorcycle endorsement in order to drive on the public roads. This
> > supposedly insure the public that the motorcyclists know the rules
> > of the road and has the ability to operate a motorcycle safely. It
> > is also required, in Oregon, that they wear an approved motorcycle
> > helmet and have liability insurance. Motorcycles are required to be
> > registered and meet equipment and safety standards. And, I'm sure
> > most other states have the same or similar requirements.
> > With the increasing number of bicyclists using bicycles as a means
> > of commuter and commercial transportation, it is time that we take a
> > serious look at license, helmet, safety, equipment and insurance
> > requirements for those bicyclists who wish to ride in high volume
> > traffic areas.
> > The days when the bicycle was basically a recreational vehicle for
> > children on neighborhood streets is long gone. And, now our laws
> > should catch up the present situation. We now need to insured the
> > public that the bicyclists and bicycles in the high traffic areas
> > are meeting some type of minimum requirements as the motorists,
> > motorcyclists and their vehicles do.

>
> With increasing numbers of pedestrians crossing streets and walking on
> roads in urban areas, registration and approved helmets because should
> be required, otherwise they are a liability to vehicle operators in
> front of whom they might step.
>
> This kind of thinking fits the GWB big brother syndrome but where will
> it stop? Guantanamo?
>
> Jobst Brandt


You're insane. You can't get there on a bicycle!