[email protected] wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > > OK, if you didn't get hit while running a red light, I apologize. I
> > > have you confused with another anonymous bike messenger.
> >
> > And if you're not just making it up completely, I would
> > be interested to go back and read that thread.
>
> I'd be interested in it, too, just to see how it went. IIRC, the
> context was a messenger saying that a) cycling is dangerous b)
> cyclists don't really need to follow the rules. He mentioned only
> parenthetically that he'd been hit, and it was only on questioning that
> he admitted he was running a light at the time.
Oh what a tangled web we weave. You seem to remember
many details about this exchange with the mystery
poster.
> > How difficult could it be? Just plug in some key words
> > to advanced groups search and off you go.
>
> Very seriously, what key words would you suggest?
Start with 'messenger' or 'courier.' Obviously, since
you remember oh-so-clearly that this was a bike
messenger, at some point he must have told you so,
right? There are only so many words that he could have
used to impart this information, and it is quite
likely that you would have quoted his disclosure in
at least one of your replies. Or, search your posts
for the word 'light' or 'lights' then cull out all the
posts which concern running red lights and look through
them.
> At this point, I
> don't remember even the topic of the thread, or I would have searched
> on that.
>
> I can try casting around, but given that this was perhaps three years
> ago, I'm not confident of finding anything.
If this thread or this person actually existed and you
actually corresponded with them on rec.bikes, it would
be fairly easy to find.
> > Just show
> > that there was at least one other 'anonymous bicycle
> > messenger' that you have corresponded with on usenet.
>
> Do you understand the difficulty in dealing with anonymous posters?
> How do I prove that there was "another" anonymous bicycle messenger
> when there are people posting extensively, using different accounts and
> different handles, but not giving any consistent name?
I always sign my posts 'Robert,' or very rarely with a
simple 'R.' I am as consistent as any poster on usenet.
Try being more observant.
> Claiming there is another anonymous bike messenger is quite different
> from claiming there is "another Sheldon Brown" or "another Jobst
> Brandt" for obvious reasons.
Yeah, you obviously couldn't get away with claiming there
is another Jobst, but you THINK you can get away with
claiming there is another anomymous poster 'with similar
handle' or whatever. But your smokescreen isn't as thick
as you seem to think.
> It's obvious that cycling in heavy traffic requires constant vigilance.
> That's how I ride in that situation.
What about MUPs, suburbs? You find it's okay
to let your guard down there?
> OTOH, most cycling is not done in heavy traffic,
That's a myopic proclamation (typical for tourists
and 'club cyclists') that is probably plain untrue.
Consider the unknown quantities of low-income commuters
on Walmart bikes, the messengers who ride miles way
out of proportion to their small numbers, and the tens
of thousands of yuppie commuters in big cities like
New York.
> just as most cycling
> is not done in crit races or careening down technical rocky single
> track. On average, cycling miles are far more relaxed than that.
I strongly disagree with your implication that technical
mtn biking and racing can be dangerous while 'normal
cycling' is not. I went for a nice four-hour trail ride
today, and as usual I felt much safer on the trail
than I felt on the approach to the trail, which was on
suburban roads. This was not an illusion in my mind, it
was Reality. Even while racing criteriums, in which
wrecks are common and injuries are fairly common, the
racers are 'safer' in the sense that motor traffic is
removed from the equation, and along with it most of
the chance for serious injury or death. 'Normal cycling'
is the most 'dangerous' type of cycling, in that it
almost always occurs in proximity to some degree of
motor traffic. Statistically the most 'dangerous'
type of cycling is done by children on their suburban
streets.
Robert