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

[Luke]

In article <[email protected]>, Paul Berg
<[email protected]> wrote:

> 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.

Around here bicycles DO have minimum requirements. They must have
lights (at night), brakes, and a bell/horn, etc... A cyclist is
expected to aware of, and observe the rules of the world. He is
considered a vehicle under the law.

Because *you* considered the bicycle as 'basically a recreational
vehicle for children' never relegated it to such a limited function.
The fact is the bicycle can be many things: a toy for kids of all ages,
a pay cheque, a route to physical fitness, a objet d'art, a cargo
vehicle, a source of transportation, etc...

You undermine the value of the instrument by characterizing one of its
lesser roles, the most frivolous by far, as its defining essence.
Rubbish. Your statement reveals little of a bicycle's nature and more
about your, thus far, blinkered perspective. Glad to see you're
acknowledging reality and shedding your misconceptions.

A sketchbook and pencils in the hands of a child can be a source of
amusement; in the hands of da Vinci, a means of amusement as well as
profound expression. Pity the infantile renaissance man, playing with
with scribbling toys.

 

[Luke]

In article <010920072003178454%[email protected]>, Luke
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Around here bicycles DO have minimum requirements. They must have
> lights (at night), brakes, and a bell/horn, etc... A cyclist is
> expected to aware of, and observe the rules of the world

Heh heh, that should read 'rules of the road'. Obeying the rules of the
world is also appreciated.

 

[Brent P]

In article <[email protected]>, John David Galt 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.

So why aren't you always driving at 10/10ths when there is nobody in
front of you?

> 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.

Funny when I drive I don't have trouble passing bicyclists like myself.
Yet, for years you've had this difficulty and then form this rage against
the bicyclists. I think you should really beat yourself up because it
really is your problem that you don't know how to drive properly. Not
every vehicle is going to be able to do as yours does, even if they are at
ten/tenths. It takes very little skill to pass a bicyclist safely without
any measurable delay.

The last bicycle rider to even cause me a few seconds at low speed was
one of these side-street changing POB's. He had passed on the sidewalk
and when the light went green went into the lane on the other side of
the intersection. This slowed traffic slightly for a very short period of
time. I did not leave the lane for him because his actions were
assholish. I"ve biked through that intersection many times and I take the
lane and hold my spot in the queue. I can usually hold even or better with
the car in the left lane next to me for a block. Where I either turn
right or go straight but by then the traffic has spaced out and thined.
(many people turn either at the intersection or within that first block)

 

[Bill Shatzer]

John David Galt 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.


Sheesh! Any pedestrian pushing the "WALK" signal button better damn
sure watch out if you're on the road.

Those things tend to stop lots of traffic.

No doubt they should be run down in their crosswalks for having the
audacity of delaying motorists.



Peace and justice,

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>,
John David Galt <[email protected]> writes:
> 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.

The drivers behind an incompetent driver will lose
time, waiting to pass a bicyclist, because the
lead incompetent driver will feel compelled to make
an issue out of the fact that there's a cyclist on
the road.

Such a driver will refuse to pass the cyclist, despite
the cyclist giving the car drivers every opportunity
to pass.

No, the leading incompetent driver will take the
presence of a cyclist as a chance to indulge in
his own road-hoggery to inflict his own
passive-aggressiveness on the drivers behind him,
while having the cyclist ahead of him to lay blame
onto. How convenient. We cyclists /want/ you
impatient boneheads to be ahead of us, and we give
you every opportunity to do so. But do you take those
opportunities? Noooooo! You've gotta make a stoopid
point about: "Oh, dear -- there's a cyclist on the road",
and hold-up a bunch of other people in the process.

Nobody wants to be stuck with the loudmouthed,
self-important likes of you riding our collective ass.
You wanna get ahead of us? Go ahead. Please!
Try not to hurt or kill anybody in the process.
Especially in lower speed zones, like around parks,
playgrounds and schools.

> 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.

What a crock of ****.

> 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.

It's disturbingly telling, when drivers gleefully
talk about running people down. Look at the shameful
thing you've become.

Y'know what? Considering the attitude you express in
your post, I wouldn't be surprised if you were also a
cutter-offer in traffic, and a butt-insky in bank or
fast food restaraunt queues.

You make it sound like cyclists actually /want/ to perturb
irate, violent, self-centered people like yourself.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The further you
are from us, and from civil society in general, the better.
Otherwise you just drag everybody around you down.


--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

 

[Wayne Pein]

John David Galt wrote:

> 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.

You're a hoot.

If what you say is true, you should stop driving a private motor vehicle
because it has less throughput than a bicycle.

Wayne

 

[Arif Khokar]

John David Galt 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.

So why don't those motor vehicles get off the road instead of block me
when I'm riding? I ride through an area where there are a lot of
intersecting crosswalks and pedestrian traffic. Inevitably, I'm behind
one of those vehicles that stops for pedestrians not within the
crosswalk and doesn't take the opportunity to go when there's a break in
pedestrian traffic. Those motor vehicles are blocking my progress,
since I, on a bicycle can easily ride through small gaps in pedestrian
traffic and be well on my way.

I don't see you saying that those motor vehicles have no business being
on the road.

 

[Nate Nagel]

Arif Khokar wrote:
> John David Galt 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.
>
>
> So why don't those motor vehicles get off the road instead of block me
> when I'm riding? I ride through an area where there are a lot of
> intersecting crosswalks and pedestrian traffic. Inevitably, I'm behind
> one of those vehicles that stops for pedestrians not within the
> crosswalk and doesn't take the opportunity to go when there's a break in
> pedestrian traffic. Those motor vehicles are blocking my progress,
> since I, on a bicycle can easily ride through small gaps in pedestrian
> traffic and be well on my way.
>
> I don't see you saying that those motor vehicles have no business being
> on the road.

I'd argue that those DRIVERS shouldn't be on the road...

nate

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

 

[Claire Petersky]

"Nate Nagel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>> So why don't those motor vehicles get off the road instead of block me
>> when I'm riding?

In particular, why don't they just get off the road during rush hour. It's a
real problem. All those damn cars, going at 5 mph or less, when I could fly
down 2nd Ave at 20 mph if they were all out of my way. I'm tired of those
slow-ass motorists - they don't even pay proportional taxes for all the
public services they consume, including for the damn road -- I'm tired of
subsidizing them with my hard-earned tax money. I'd wish they'd just stay
off of so I could ride as fast as I'd like, as is my god-given right as a
bicyclist.

I mean, the nerve of those people. Don't they know that the road belongs to
ME???!?!

--
Warm Regards,


Claire Petersky
http://www.bicyclemeditations.org/
See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky

 

[John David Galt]

Arif Khokar wrote:
> John David Galt 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.
>
> So why don't those motor vehicles get off the road instead of block me
> when I'm riding? I ride through an area where there are a lot of
> intersecting crosswalks and pedestrian traffic. Inevitably, I'm behind
> one of those vehicles that stops for pedestrians not within the
> crosswalk and doesn't take the opportunity to go when there's a break in
> pedestrian traffic. Those motor vehicles are blocking my progress,
> since I, on a bicycle can easily ride through small gaps in pedestrian
> traffic and be well on my way.
>
> I don't see you saying that those motor vehicles have no business being
> on the road.

Motor vehicles have the higher throughput because of their higher potential
speed. Besides, drivers pay for the road, so they are who it's for. Duh.

 

[Brent P]

In article <[email protected]>, John David Galt wrote:

> Motor vehicles have the higher throughput because of their higher potential
> speed.

Then why do I find myself in at least one if not several backups of motor
vehicles most times that I bike? Most people operating a motor vehicle
don't know how to get through an intersection in a timely manner. This
results in the backups.

> Besides, drivers pay for the road, so they are who it's for. Duh.

I pay for the roads, I'll use them with the vehicle of my choosing.

Then again, by your logic I should get to pass all the motor vehicles
that delay me when I am bicycling.

 

[Arif Khokar]

John David Galt wrote:
> Arif Khokar wrote:

>> So why don't those motor vehicles get off the road instead of block me
>> when I'm riding? I ride through an area where there are a lot of
>> intersecting crosswalks and pedestrian traffic. Inevitably, I'm behind
>> one of those vehicles that stops for pedestrians not within the
>> crosswalk and doesn't take the opportunity to go when there's a break in
>> pedestrian traffic. Those motor vehicles are blocking my progress,
>> since I, on a bicycle can easily ride through small gaps in pedestrian
>> traffic and be well on my way.
>>
>> I don't see you saying that those motor vehicles have no business being
>> on the road.

> Motor vehicles have the higher throughput because of their higher potential
> speed.

Potential speed doesn't equal higher throughput unless the vehicle is
going that speed. A bicycle going 15 to 20 mph has higher throughput as
compared to a motor vehicle going 0 mph. Therefore, motor vehicles have
lower throughput and they should get off the road.

 

[Matthew T. Russotto]

In article <pL1Ai.3175$ai3.2155@trndny03>,
Lobby Dosser <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
>
>> In article <gUJzi.20$073.18@trndny05>,
>> Lobby Dosser <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>ref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com pdx.general:162844
>>>or.politics:705803 alt.politics:3574095 rec.bicycles.misc:470681
>>>rec.autos.driving:685079
>>>
>>>[email protected] (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Quit with the cutesy implications and spell it out: Exactly what
>>>> must a person do for you to NOT wish them to wear this bracelet? Is
>>>> it refusal to bicycle helmets only? If so, what's the special
>>>> danger which makes bicycling without a helmet so much worse than all
>>>> other forms of risk?
>>>
>>>It isn't. 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.
>>
>> Quit with the cutesy implications and spell it out: Exactly what must
>> a person do for you to NOT wish them to wear this bracelet?
>
>Obey the law. If the law says wear a helmet and you don't, the rest of us
>don't pay for Any related head injury.

The law is not a good standard for deciding what the law _should be_.

And if the law is your standard, note that it does not set denial of
medical care as the penalty for violating seat belt laws or helmet
laws.

--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

 

[Matthew T. Russotto]

In article <f8aAi.1423$0_2.1153@trndny07>,
Lobby Dosser <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 00:15:35 GMT, Lobby Dosser
>> <[email protected]> said in
>> <HC3Ai.2093$7p6.1630@trnddc01>:
>>
>>>The cost is not the issue. Is it.
>>
>> Make your mind up. You're the one who raised that issue.
>
>Does Everything need to be explained? The PRINCIPLE.

You said it was a political issue. Doesn't that pretty much throw
principle out the window?
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

 

[Matthew T. Russotto]

In article <[email protected]>,
amakyonin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>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.

They'll lose those few seconds at best. They could miss the next light as
a result. At which point the bicyclist will often pass the stopped
motorist, run the light, and then block the motorist again. Repeat as
often as desired.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

 

[Arif Khokar]

Matthew T. Russotto wrote:

> They'll lose those few seconds at best. They could miss the next light as
> a result. At which point the bicyclist will often pass the stopped
> motorist, run the light, and then block the motorist again. Repeat as
> often as desired.

Then time your pass so that you don't end up at the cyclist's speed for
an "inordinate" amount of time. For instance, if there's oncoming
traffic and I'm catching up to a cyclist, I'll reduce speed (say from 40
to 30 mph), wait for traffic to pass, move to left and pass the cyclist,
without losing much time at all. All it requires is a degree of
situational awareness.

 

[Brent P]

In article <[email protected]>, Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> amakyonin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>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.
>
> They'll lose those few seconds at best.

No. The few seconds timing a pass of a bicyclist is still moving very
close to the speed one would have been moving if the bicyclist were not
there.

> They could miss the next light as a result.

I miss more lights due to other drivers when I am driving and drivers when I
am bicycling than because of bicyclists somewhere around a factor of
10,000.

> At which point the bicyclist will often pass the stopped
> motorist, run the light, and then block the motorist again. Repeat as
> often as desired.

I have no love of them and usually I'll make a comment to them if I am
biking at the time. They are slow... I always catch them when bicycling
myself.

 

[Lobby Dosser]

[email protected] (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:

> In article <pL1Ai.3175$ai3.2155@trndny03>,
> Lobby Dosser <[email protected]> wrote:
>>[email protected] (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
>>
>>> In article <gUJzi.20$073.18@trndny05>,
>>> Lobby Dosser <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>ref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com pdx.general:162844
>>>>or.politics:705803 alt.politics:3574095 rec.bicycles.misc:470681
>>>>rec.autos.driving:685079
>>>>
>>>>[email protected] (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Quit with the cutesy implications and spell it out: Exactly what
>>>>> must a person do for you to NOT wish them to wear this bracelet?
>>>>> Is it refusal to bicycle helmets only? If so, what's the special
>>>>> danger which makes bicycling without a helmet so much worse than
>>>>> all other forms of risk?
>>>>
>>>>It isn't. 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.
>>>
>>> Quit with the cutesy implications and spell it out: Exactly what
>>> must a person do for you to NOT wish them to wear this bracelet?
>>
>>Obey the law. If the law says wear a helmet and you don't, the rest of
>>us don't pay for Any related head injury.
>
> The law is not a good standard for deciding what the law _should be_.
>
> And if the law is your standard, note that it does not set denial of
> medical care as the penalty for violating seat belt laws or helmet
> laws.
>

It should. Or the devices should not be Required.

 

[Lobby Dosser]

[email protected] (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:

> In article <f8aAi.1423$0_2.1153@trndny07>,
> Lobby Dosser <[email protected]> wrote:
>>"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 00:15:35 GMT, Lobby Dosser
>>> <[email protected]> said in
>>> <HC3Ai.2093$7p6.1630@trnddc01>:
>>>
>>>>The cost is not the issue. Is it.
>>>
>>> Make your mind up. You're the one who raised that issue.
>>
>>Does Everything need to be explained? The PRINCIPLE.
>
> You said it was a political issue. Doesn't that pretty much throw
> principle out the window?

No.

 

[Lobby Dosser]

Arif Khokar <[email protected]> wrote:

> Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
>
>> They'll lose those few seconds at best. They could miss the next
>> light as a result. At which point the bicyclist will often pass the
>> stopped motorist, run the light, and then block the motorist again.
>> Repeat as often as desired.
>
> Then time your pass so that you don't end up at the cyclist's speed
> for an "inordinate" amount of time. For instance, if there's oncoming
> traffic and I'm catching up to a cyclist, I'll reduce speed (say from
> 40 to 30 mph), wait for traffic to pass, move to left and pass the
> cyclist, without losing much time at all. All it requires is a degree
> of situational awareness.
>

And when you stop at the light, don't leave room for the cyclist to
pass.