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



B

Brent P

Guest
In article <[email protected]>, John S. wrote:

>> I see you think everyone uses google's web interface. This is usenet, not
>> some web forum. Deleting context and then making a response is simply to
>> ignore the previous points, which you did.


> 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.


No, you need to get with the program and stop using excuses for what
amounts to bad form. If you don't have a real reply, don't reply instead
of deleting all quoted material and inserting a propaganda spew.

>> > Yes, as I thought safety has nothing to do with it. It's a civil
>> > rights issue - the right to not wear a helmet, not wear a seat belt,
>> > not put your child in a child seat. The right to wittingly increase
>> > the risk of serious injury when there are obvious and simple ways to
>> > reduce that risk


>> The right not to have you or anyone else playing parent. Control
>> freakism is disease, a cancer. It takes many forms, from the neo-con
>> desire to listen in on everyone's phone calls and open their mail to the
>> socialists that want to control how much bread or gasoline or anything
>> else we can have. But the worst form of control freakism is the
>> 'do-gooder'.


>> I don't agree with *YOUR* judgement of what the risks are and the ways to
>> reduce them. But you and your ilk are always there to empose your
>> judgement on the rest of us. You feel the need to tell us how to live our
>> lives, make decisions for us, micro-manage things for other people. You
>> have no such right sir.


> Oh but you are completely wrong on that point my friend. As a member
> of society I do have a right to make such a judgement as long as that
> judgement is concurred with and implemented by society.


You have no right to impose your judgement on other people. None. There
is liberty where we live our lives with our own judgement, and tyranny where
others impose their their judgement upon us.

It's obvious you don't like others making judgements for you. You
rejected wearing the knee pads to walk on the sidewalk.

> Don't like
> our rules to make a civilized and safer society - just leave.


It's civilized to live by your demands. Yes, control freaks often think
that. In reality what is civilized is liberty. Command and control is
rather primitive. It assumes that the people are animals or at best
children and need the guiding light of the control freaks to have
civilization.

> Or get enough votes to change the rules.


Tyranny of the majority. Sorry buddy, there's this thing called liberty
it is each person's birthright, you do not get to violate it.

> But don't just whine on incessantly
> on some news group about how your rights to do stupid things have been
> abriged by rules most of us consider to be sensible.


Translation: The rules the control freaks come up define sensible and
reasonable, only the control freaks define such things and feel because
most people are too lazy to fight them they have majority approval. In
reality the majority just ignore them.

> **** deleted.


Hits a little too close to home eh?

"Of all tyrannies a tyranny exercised for the good of its
victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber
barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty
may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but
those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for
they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
- C.S. Lewis
 
W

Wayne Pein

Guest
Bill Sornson wrote:

> Wayne Pein wrote:
>
>>Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Maybe. But when Wayne the Pain takes a lane, it's because he's just
>>>as good as any car and they can pass him when he's good and ready to
>>>let them.

>>
>>
>>Ignoramus,
>>
>>I'm better than any car.

>
>
> You sure emit more than most.
>
>

Ignoramus,

Stop stalking me. Oh, I know, you can't resist me.

Wayne
 
W

Wayne Pein

Guest
Lobby Dosser wrote:

> Wayne Pein <[email protected]> wrote:


>>No, bicyclists are easier to pass because they are going slow.
>>Bicyclists who don't move over to allow passing in their lane do so
>>because they don't believe motorists can do it without compromising
>>their safety. They've previously generously allowed motorists to use
>>their lane only to be buzzed by jerkoffs.

>
>
> So "jerkoffs" won't buzz them if they ride in the middle of the lane?
> Seems like it would be more likely.


Let me expound.

"Jerkoffs" buzz you no matter where you ride within the lane. Other
people buzz you when you ride on the far right because they think they
can squeeze by when they shouldn't. Using more of the lane compels
everyone to be more cautious. Sometimes using more of the lane means
riding on the right side but further out; other times it means using the
full lane to send the message that the motorist will have to change lanes.

Wayne
 
W

Wayne Pein

Guest
Bill Sornson wrote:


>>But the cyclist will have room to move to the right if necessary if
>>that happens. That's not the case if one of those "jerkoff" motorists
>>brush-passes him while he's as far over to the right as he can be.

>
>
> I just figured it out: the ABLZs (anti-bike-lane zealots) are so paranoid
> about being passed too closely that they advocate moving left ("taking the
> lane") even when it's not only completely unjustified but also highly
> ill-advised.


>
> Bill "I take the lane out of necessity, not out of fear OR to prove a silly
> point" S.
>



You didn't figure anything out. You're just as clueless as ever.

Wayne
 
A

Arif Khokar

Guest
Lobby Dosser wrote:
> Arif Khokar <[email protected]> wrote:


>> A real bike is much more physically demanding as compared to any
>> stationary bike.


> Not if you have the proper stionary bike.


It's a Schwinn Airdyne. I used to ride around 55 to 60 rpm to keep my
heart rate in the target range. The last time I tried, I had to ride it
around 67 rpm for the same effect.

> You can't ride up reasonably steep hill if you do your real biking
> in Northern Ohio.


I've never ridden in Northern Ohio. I maintain around 8 to 10 mph up
steep hills here. If I'm tired, my speed drops down to 6 mph.
 
B

Bill Sornson

Guest
Brent P wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Bill Sornson
> wrote:
>
>> I just figured it out: the ABLZs (anti-bike-lane zealots) are so
>> paranoid about being passed too closely that they advocate moving
>> left ("taking the lane") even when it's not only completely
>> unjustified but also highly ill-advised.

>
> You're dead wrong. The reason to be against bicycle lanes


Bzzt. They advocate unsafe lane-taking regardless -- in fact, much /more/
when no bike lane is present (obviously).

HTH
 
B

Bill Sornson

Guest
Wayne Pein wrote:

> "Jerkoffs" buzz you no matter where you ride within the lane.


Mostly true. Hardly ever happens when there's a nice, clean, effective bike
lane.

> Other
> people buzz you when you ride on the far right because they think they
> can squeeze by when they shouldn't.


/Never/ happens when there's a nice, clean, effective bike lane.

Glad we could clear this up for you! :p
 
B

Brent P

Guest
In article <[email protected]>, Bill Sornson wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, Bill Sornson
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I just figured it out: the ABLZs (anti-bike-lane zealots) are so
>>> paranoid about being passed too closely that they advocate moving
>>> left ("taking the lane") even when it's not only completely
>>> unjustified but also highly ill-advised.

>>
>> You're dead wrong. The reason to be against bicycle lanes

>
> Bzzt. They advocate unsafe lane-taking regardless -- in fact, much /more/
> when no bike lane is present (obviously).


Just delete the reasons why bicycle lanes suck and pretend they don't
exist. Bicycle lanes are opposed because of the problems I listed and
probably some I neglected to list. I have never encountered someone who
opposes bicycle lanes because they want to take the lane for giggles.

I will continue to take the lane as I see fit regardless as follows:

1) At red signals and stop lights.
2) When preparing to turn left (and right under some conditions).
3) When traveling as fast or faster than traffic in front of me and/or to my
immediate left.
4) When poor pavement conditions make riding further right difficult and
unsafe.
5) When lanes are too narrow and there is no shoulder.
6) On blind curves or hills when the lane is narrow.
 
M

Marz

Guest
On Aug 24, 11:46 am, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> /Never/ happens when there's a nice, clean, effective bike lane.



Do they exist? I've never seen one around here (Texas), where folks
consider everywhere to the right of that white line the appropiate
place to dump beer bottles, stolen cars and bbqs (ok only ever one
bbq). Bike lanes, segmented sections of the highways as opposed to
bike paths (which are of some use), do NOTHING for cyclist's safety.
In fast moving traffic (>30mph) how do handle a left hand turn from a
righthand side cycle lane?
 
W

Wayne Pein

Guest
Bill Sornson wrote:

> Wayne Pein wrote:
>
>
>>"Jerkoffs" buzz you no matter where you ride within the lane.

>
>
> Mostly true. Hardly ever happens when there's a nice, clean, effective bike
> lane.
>
>
>>Other
>>people buzz you when you ride on the far right because they think they
>>can squeeze by when they shouldn't.

>
>
> /Never/ happens when there's a nice, clean, effective bike lane.
>
> Glad we could clear this up for you! :p
>


Ignoramus,

Then how is it that motorists strike bicyclists from behind in bike lanes?

http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pedbike/ctanbike/16b.pdf

See Figure 34.

HTH

Wayne
 
B

Bill Sornson

Guest
Brent P wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Bill Sornson
> wrote:
>> Brent P wrote:
>>> In article <[email protected]>, Bill Sornson
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I just figured it out: the ABLZs (anti-bike-lane zealots) are so
>>>> paranoid about being passed too closely that they advocate moving
>>>> left ("taking the lane") even when it's not only completely
>>>> unjustified but also highly ill-advised.
>>>
>>> You're dead wrong. The reason to be against bicycle lanes

>>
>> Bzzt. They advocate unsafe lane-taking regardless -- in fact, much
>> /more/ when no bike lane is present (obviously).

>
> Just delete the reasons why bicycle lanes suck


Bzzt. ALL bike lanes? Most are perfectly fine and hugely beneficial; a
very few are substandard and even rarely unsafe.

I take the lane all the time (scenarios you listed and many more) --
numerous instances each and every ride. DOESN'T MEAN BIKE LANES SUCK (cuz
they don't).

HTH.
 
B

Bill Sornson

Guest
Marz wrote:
> On Aug 24, 11:46 am, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> /Never/ happens when there's a nice, clean, effective bike lane.

>
>
> Do they exist? I've never seen one around here (Texas), where folks
> consider everywhere to the right of that white line the appropiate
> place to dump beer bottles, stolen cars and bbqs (ok only ever one
> bbq). Bike lanes, segmented sections of the highways as opposed to
> bike paths (which are of some use), do NOTHING for cyclist's safety.
> In fast moving traffic (>30mph) how do handle a left hand turn from a
> righthand side cycle lane?


In San Diego County, our bike lanes are wonderful (with rare exceptions, of
course). Others have said similar things about their locales (Arizona comes
to mind).

Must suck to live where they're lousy. (Sounds more like a shoulder line
than a true bike lane, btw.)
 
B

Bill Sornson

Guest
Wayne Pein wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>
>> Wayne Pein wrote:
>>
>>
>>> "Jerkoffs" buzz you no matter where you ride within the lane.

>>
>>
>> Mostly true. Hardly ever happens when there's a nice, clean,
>> effective bike lane.
>>
>>
>>> Other
>>> people buzz you when you ride on the far right because they think
>>> they can squeeze by when they shouldn't.

>>
>>
>> /Never/ happens when there's a nice, clean, effective bike lane.
>>
>> Glad we could clear this up for you! :p
>>

>
> Ignoramus,
>
> Then how is it that motorists strike bicyclists from behind in bike
> lanes?
> http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pedbike/ctanbike/16b.pdf
>
> See Figure 34.
>
> HTH


One danger that exists while road riding is the inattentive (drunk,
distracted, stroke victim, etc.) driver. MORE likely to hit or brush you
out in the lane than off to the side, of course, but equally deadly to both.
If you're so afraid of that happening in "Pein's World Of Paranoia" {tm},
then you should stay inside or stick to bike paths or trails.

HTH
 
B

Brent P

Guest
In article <[email protected]>, Bill Sornson wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, Bill Sornson
>> wrote:
>>> Brent P wrote:
>>>> In article <[email protected]>, Bill Sornson
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I just figured it out: the ABLZs (anti-bike-lane zealots) are so
>>>>> paranoid about being passed too closely that they advocate moving
>>>>> left ("taking the lane") even when it's not only completely
>>>>> unjustified but also highly ill-advised.
>>>>
>>>> You're dead wrong. The reason to be against bicycle lanes
>>>
>>> Bzzt. They advocate unsafe lane-taking regardless -- in fact, much
>>> /more/ when no bike lane is present (obviously).

>>
>> Just delete the reasons why bicycle lanes suck

>
> Bzzt. ALL bike lanes? Most are perfectly fine and hugely beneficial; a
> very few are substandard and even rarely unsafe.


When all fails snip and replace with a strawman. All bikelanes have one
or more of the reasons I listed. Few substandard and unsafe? You need to
visit chicago, where every one I've seen is substandard and most are
unsafe.

> I take the lane all the time (scenarios you listed and many more) --
> numerous instances each and every ride. DOESN'T MEAN BIKE LANES SUCK (cuz
> they don't).


But it does prove that people who are against bicycle ghettos aren't pro
taking the lane 100% of the time.
 
W

Wayne Pein

Guest
Bill Sornson wrote:

>
> One danger that exists while road riding is the inattentive (drunk,
> distracted, stroke victim, etc.) driver. MORE likely to hit or brush you
> out in the lane than off to the side, of course, but equally deadly to both.
> If you're so afraid of that happening in "Pein's World Of Paranoia" {tm},
> then you should stay inside or stick to bike paths or trails.
>


Ignoramus,

YOU are the paranoid bike lane apologist.

Arguing with you is like wallpapering fog.

Wayne
 
B

Bill Sornson

Guest
Brent P wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Bill Sornson
> wrote:


>> I take the lane all the time (scenarios you listed and many more) --
>> numerous instances each and every ride. DOESN'T MEAN BIKE LANES
>> SUCK (cuz they don't).


> But it does prove that people who are against bicycle ghettos aren't
> pro taking the lane 100% of the time.


When there's no need or reason to take the lane -- like, say, when there's a
NICE BEAUTIFUL BIKE LANE PRESENT -- it's stupid and often dangerous to do
so.

Guys like you will get bikes banned from trafficked roads. Get a clue.
 
B

Bill Sornson

Guest
Wayne Pein wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>
>>
>> One danger that exists while road riding is the inattentive (drunk,
>> distracted, stroke victim, etc.) driver. MORE likely to hit or
>> brush you out in the lane than off to the side, of course, but
>> equally deadly to both. If you're so afraid of that happening in
>> "Pein's World Of Paranoia" {tm}, then you should stay inside or
>> stick to bike paths or trails.

>
> Ignoramus,
>
> YOU are the paranoid bike lane apologist.


Apologist? They're great.

> Arguing with you is like wallpapering fog.


So stop.

HTH
 
B

Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S

Guest
On Aug 24, 11:24 am, Wayne Pein <[email protected]> wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
> > Wayne Pein wrote:

>
> >>"Jerkoffs" buzz you no matter where you ride within the lane.

>
> > Mostly true. Hardly ever happens when there's a nice, clean, effective bike
> > lane.

>
> >>Other
> >>people buzz you when you ride on the far right because they think they
> >>can squeeze by when they shouldn't.

>
> > /Never/ happens when there's a nice, clean, effective bike lane.

>
> > Glad we could clear this up for you! :p

>
> Ignoramus,
>
> Then how is it that motorists strike bicyclists from behind in bike lanes?
>
> http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pedbike/ctanbike/16b.pdf
>

See Figure 34.

HTH

She had nice tits, think it did.
 
B

Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S

Guest
On Aug 24, 12:52 pm, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>, Bill Sornson
> > wrote:
> >> I take the lane all the time (scenarios you listed and many more) --
> >> numerous instances each and every ride. DOESN'T MEAN BIKE LANES
> >> SUCK (cuz they don't).

> > But it does prove that people who are against bicycle ghettos aren't
> > pro taking the lane 100% of the time.

>
> When there's no need or reason to take the lane -- like, say, when there's a
> NICE BEAUTIFUL BIKE LANE PRESENT -- it's stupid and often dangerous to do
> so.
>
> Guys like you will get bikes banned from trafficked roads. Get a clue.


What planet are you from, asshole?

Oh yeah, Planet Kali. You must be the inescapeable, ever present
vizier/soothsayer/sage/drunken egomanic ***** who claims to know more
that those who are too wise to just bump you. I hope your group is
NEVER the source of all things bicycle or we are doomed. Kindly shut
your mentally superior piehole and let the other kids play.

It's amazing that in nearly eight years on Usenet I haven't met all of
your kind (or gotten blood poisoning). Yet another meaningless
flamefest over **** that DOES NOT MATTER.

Get off the computer an USE the bike, morons!
 
B

Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S

Guest
On Aug 24, 12:53 pm, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Wayne Pein wrote:
> > Bill Sornson wrote:

>
> >> One danger that exists while road riding is the inattentive (drunk,
> >> distracted, stroke victim, etc.) driver. MORE likely to hit or
> >> brush you out in the lane than off to the side, of course, but
> >> equally deadly to both. If you're so afraid of that happening in
> >> "Pein's World Of Paranoia" {tm}, then you should stay inside or
> >> stick to bike paths or trails.

>
> > Ignoramus,

>
> > YOU are the paranoid bike lane apologist.

>
> Apologist? They're great.
>
> > Arguing with you is like wallpapering fog.

>
> So stop.
>
> HTH


Go to the principal's office.