Re: OT: joining the ranks of two wheelers again

Brent P

In article <66-dnUaDX6WS2gPbnZ2dnUVZ_saknZ2d@comcast.com>, Peter Cole wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article <PMSdncLhLOlbYgDbnZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d@comcast.com>, Peter Cole wrote:
>>
>>
>>> That's why we have mirrors on cars. You really should be more attentive.
>>
>> You shouldn't be a dumbshit. Mirrors are why I haven't collided with a
>> moron like you. In fact, when I see you asshats coming I'll put my car
>> close enough to the curb so you can't get by, forcing at least some
>> better behavior out you.
>
> Oh, so you're one of *those* guys. Somehow I just knew it, a "teach 'em
> a lesson" type. Guess what?

Teach them a lesson? Not at all. It doesn't teach them anything. I just
make their MFFY practice more difficult.

> You're only a "majority" in your own mind.
> In reality, you're maybe one in a hundred or one in a thousand, thank
> god. You're a fringe lunatic, you know.

It's quite common. I've had quite a number of drivers pass me while I was
biking only to hug the curb afterwards to prevent me from repassing,
thinking that I ride the way you do.

> Remember, that's a $400 mirror you're putting in their path, wouldn't
> want to see anything happen that would you?

If they got as far forward as my mirror they aren't going anywhere.

Brent P

In article <66-dnUGDX6Wm2gPbnZ2dnUVZ_sbinZ2d@comcast.com>, Peter Cole wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article <vMWdndD0i4IpmAPbnZ2dnUVZ_hudnZ2d@comcast.com>, Peter Cole wrote:
>>
>>>> If you aren't going to obey the passing spacing laws, why should the
>>>> driver?
>>
>>> You're equating minor cosmetic damage to your car with serious bodily
>>> harm/death. Do you realize how crazy that sounds?
>>
>> You can be seriously harmed crashing into a parked car. Again, if you're
>> not going to respect spacing, even for your own safety, why should the
>> driver?
>>
>>
>
> You *are* nuts.

Translation: You have no response.

Arif Khokar

Peter Cole wrote:
> Arif Khokar wrote:

>>> Lot's of really bad (dangerous) cyclists/drivers out there obeying
>>> the letter, if not the spirit, of the law.

>> Could you give an example of a cyclist obeying right-of-way rules to
>> the letter riding in a dangerous manner?

> Sure, a few come quickly to mind: riding in the door zone,

That has nothing to do with right-of-way rules, and any cyclist with
some experience knows better than to ride in the door zone. As traffic
law says: ride as far right as *practical*. Practical doesn't mean
possible.

> down when peds/children are around, or when sight lines are blocked
> (double parkers, blind driveways, etc.)

Still nothing concerning right-of-way rules.

> Another dumb thing is pace lines in urban areas, again because of
> blocked sight lines. An acquaintance was drafting another rider when
> that rider quickly dodged around a wrong-way rider leaving the trailing
> rider no time to react, he was injured, badly.

And that's the fault of the cyclist who was riding in the correct
direction, and not the fault of the wrong-way rider?

> Another is sprinting in traffic. Coming unclipped, breaking a chain or
> even just a gear skip can dismount you into traffic.

Again, nothing to do with right-of-way rules.

I sprint to keep up with traffic as needed. I see nothing unsafe about
that as long as one maintains their bicycle.

> I personally would never stand alone in a left/straight mixed use lane
> waiting for a light or traffic break, either, just too invisible.

That hasn't been my experience. It's pretty easy to see a cyclist in
the middle of a traffic lane waiting for a red light. It's not as easy
to see one riding in the crosswalk far over to the right, who then
crosses in front of you when you're going straight (assuming your riding
style).

> I don't use hand signals when I'm not absolutely sure that I won't have
> to brake or swerve suddenly, I've seen more than one rider go down that
> way.

I only signal briefly as needed.

> About the only situation where I'd recommend breaking the right of way
> rules for safety, rather than convenience is when I'm the only one
> stopped at a light, especially at night, especially if the through
> traffic is fast.

I avoid riding at night if possible.

Peter Cole

Arif Khokar wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:
>> Arif Khokar wrote:
>
>>>> Lot's of really bad (dangerous) cyclists/drivers out there obeying
>>>> the letter, if not the spirit, of the law.
>
>>> Could you give an example of a cyclist obeying right-of-way rules to
>>> the letter riding in a dangerous manner?
>
>> Sure, a few come quickly to mind: riding in the door zone,
>
> That has nothing to do with right-of-way rules, and any cyclist with
> some experience knows better than to ride in the door zone. As traffic
> law says: ride as far right as *practical*. Practical doesn't mean
> possible.
>
>> down when peds/children are around, or when sight lines are blocked
>> (double parkers, blind driveways, etc.)
>
> Still nothing concerning right-of-way rules.
>
>> Another dumb thing is pace lines in urban areas, again because of
>> blocked sight lines. An acquaintance was drafting another rider when
>> that rider quickly dodged around a wrong-way rider leaving the
>> trailing rider no time to react, he was injured, badly.
>
> And that's the fault of the cyclist who was riding in the correct
> direction, and not the fault of the wrong-way rider?
>
>> Another is sprinting in traffic. Coming unclipped, breaking a chain or
>> even just a gear skip can dismount you into traffic.
>
> Again, nothing to do with right-of-way rules.
>
> I sprint to keep up with traffic as needed. I see nothing unsafe about
> that as long as one maintains their bicycle.
>
>> I personally would never stand alone in a left/straight mixed use lane
>> waiting for a light or traffic break, either, just too invisible.
>
> That hasn't been my experience. It's pretty easy to see a cyclist in
> the middle of a traffic lane waiting for a red light. It's not as easy
> to see one riding in the crosswalk far over to the right, who then
> crosses in front of you when you're going straight (assuming your riding
> style).
>
>> I don't use hand signals when I'm not absolutely sure that I won't
>> have to brake or swerve suddenly, I've seen more than one rider go
>> down that way.
>
> I only signal briefly as needed.
>
>> About the only situation where I'd recommend breaking the right of way
>> rules for safety, rather than convenience is when I'm the only one
>> stopped at a light, especially at night, especially if the through
>> traffic is fast.
>
> I avoid riding at night if possible.

I'm sorry, you seem to feel that I think following existing ROW rules
has a negative effect on safety. I don't. It's about convenience.

Peter Cole

Brent P wrote:

> It's quite common. I've had quite a number of drivers pass me while I was
> biking only to hug the curb afterwards to prevent me from repassing,
> thinking that I ride the way you do.

Oh, you read minds, too? Not mine, I line my helmet with tinfoil.

Dane Buson

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:
>>
>> Well, if it's my skin I'm risking, why should you care? That's my whole
>> point. I don't think laws are intended to protect people from
>> themselves. Actually, I don't think I do risk my skin any more than you
>> (probably less), and since it is my skin, I feel completely entitled to
>> risk it or not as I see fit.
>>
>> No need for name calling.
>
> YOUR behavior on a bicycle leads to a general disrespect of cyclists by
> motorist. This makes things more dangerous for EVERY cyclist.

I have a lot of trouble swallowing that rationale.

It's essentially a rationalization to justify doing or saying crappy things to
the "other" group. Bicyclists are a minority of the population, and anyone who
uses a bike for transportation instead of a toy definitely puts themselves in
the "outsider" group. Xenophobia and ignorance does the rest.

It's pretty much in the same group as things like:

[Ethnic group] is so [lazy|stupid|dirty|criminal] they don't deserve better
treatment.

If every cyclist every driver saw in the future punctiliously followed every
traffic regulation would they stop having a problem with cyclists? Probably
not. They'd probably say something like "You mess up traffic", "You don't pay
for your fair share of the roads", "You should get a real vehicle to get to
work", etc., etc., ad nauseum, ad infinitum.

I'm saying the whole "When bicyclists start respecting [X]" is a strawman at
best. I see plenty of motorists running red lights and stop signs and nobody
seems to paint all drivers with that brush. Because the majority of people are
car drivers.

--
Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org
The Buddha, the Godhead, resides quite as comfortably in the circuits of a
digital computer or the gears of a cycle transmission as he does at the top
of a mountain or in the petals of a flower. To think otherwise is to demean
the Buddha -- which is to demean oneself.
-- Robert Pirsig, "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance"

Dane Buson

Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote:
> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>> The poor dears must actually believe the TV car commercials - the ones
>> that show that buying the "new 2007 Belchmobile" will magically remove
>> all other cars from the road. (How _do_ the ad producers keep all other
>> cars out of their shots?) When they harness themselves to another
>> $30,000 debt and find themselves still stuck in traffic, they feel angry.
>
> Funny thing is, last weekend my neighbor & I were comparing gross
> vehicle weights & hp of our repective vehicles (we're both kind of motor
> heads). Turns out his "hot rod" 70's 'Vette isn't that much different
> than my '95 minivan (AKA brain fart) -- and mine is sluggish by current
> standards. We're cranking out faster & faster cars while the logistics
> (congestion & economics) are pushing back hard -- there's a real logical
> disconnect. Well, it wasn't so long ago that many/most thought DWI/DUI
> was no big deal either.

I'm personally in favour of graduated licensing and possibly graduated
taxation, both based on engine displacement[1]. Short of myself getting
appointed President for life, I don't see that happening in the US.

[1] Other countries have implemented exactly these measures.

--
Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org
A computer without COBOL and Fortran is like a piece of chocolate cake
without ketchup and mustard.

Peter Cole

Dane Buson wrote:
> Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> The poor dears must actually believe the TV car commercials - the ones
>>> that show that buying the "new 2007 Belchmobile" will magically remove
>>> all other cars from the road. (How _do_ the ad producers keep all other
>>> cars out of their shots?) When they harness themselves to another
>>> $30,000 debt and find themselves still stuck in traffic, they feel angry.
>> Funny thing is, last weekend my neighbor & I were comparing gross
>> vehicle weights & hp of our repective vehicles (we're both kind of motor
>> heads). Turns out his "hot rod" 70's 'Vette isn't that much different
>> than my '95 minivan (AKA brain fart) -- and mine is sluggish by current
>> standards. We're cranking out faster & faster cars while the logistics
>> (congestion & economics) are pushing back hard -- there's a real logical
>> disconnect. Well, it wasn't so long ago that many/most thought DWI/DUI
>> was no big deal either.
>
> I'm personally in favour of graduated licensing and possibly graduated
> taxation, both based on engine displacement[1]. Short of myself getting
> appointed President for life, I don't see that happening in the US.
>
> [1] Other countries have implemented exactly these measures.
>

I think that perhaps the fairest thing to do is just raise the taxes on
gas (also something other countries have done in a big way), that way
you wouldn't be penalized for having a guzzler, just for driving it.
But, at a time when people are indignant over the price of gas, having
the government make it "artificially" higher seems like a no-starter --
rational, but a no-starter. What does that say?

Arif Khokar

Peter Cole wrote:

> I'm sorry, you seem to feel that I think following existing ROW rules
> has a negative effect on safety. I don't. It's about convenience.

Ok, so do you find it less convenient to take the lane, get into the
left turn lane, and wait for the traffic light to change to green,
proceed through the intersection like you would while driving as
compared to riding on the side walk, using the crosswalk to cross the
street, and using the next crosswalk to cross the street you were just
on, all while having to worry about vehicles turning right, going
straight, and pedestrians on the sidewalk?

Peter Cole

Dane Buson wrote:
> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>> Well, if it's my skin I'm risking, why should you care? That's my whole
>>> point. I don't think laws are intended to protect people from
>>> themselves. Actually, I don't think I do risk my skin any more than you
>>> (probably less), and since it is my skin, I feel completely entitled to
>>> risk it or not as I see fit.
>>>
>>> No need for name calling.
>> YOUR behavior on a bicycle leads to a general disrespect of cyclists by
>> motorist. This makes things more dangerous for EVERY cyclist.
>
> I have a lot of trouble swallowing that rationale.
>
> It's essentially a rationalization to justify doing or saying crappy things to
> the "other" group. Bicyclists are a minority of the population, and anyone who
> uses a bike for transportation instead of a toy definitely puts themselves in
> the "outsider" group. Xenophobia and ignorance does the rest.
>
> It's pretty much in the same group as things like:
>
> [Ethnic group] is so [lazy|stupid|dirty|criminal] they don't deserve better
> treatment.
>
> If every cyclist every driver saw in the future punctiliously followed every
> traffic regulation would they stop having a problem with cyclists? Probably
> not. They'd probably say something like "You mess up traffic", "You don't pay
> for your fair share of the roads", "You should get a real vehicle to get to
> work", etc., etc., ad nauseum, ad infinitum.
>
> I'm saying the whole "When bicyclists start respecting [X]" is a strawman at
> best. I see plenty of motorists running red lights and stop signs and nobody
> seems to paint all drivers with that brush. Because the majority of people are
> car drivers.
>

Thanks for putting it so well. I think of it as bicycle "Uncle Tom-ism".
I've actually gone (over 10 years) from being an enthusiastic member of
cycling advocacy groups to being anti those same groups. I concluded
that not only were they not working in my perceived self interests, but
actually against them. I don't believe in either "vehicular" cycling or
segregated facilities which seem to be the major advocacy platforms. I
prefer the old anarchy to that new "progress". I get more like Zoot
every day.

Nate Nagel

Peter Cole wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>
>> In article <1oKdnUzJdY_LzgDbnZ2dnUVZ_u_inZ2d@comcast.com>, Peter Cole
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Unlike you, I have never hit another cyclist. I also have never had a
>>> bike crash or a car crash. Maybe you should listen to reason.
>>
>>
>> Ride around kids on bikes some time. They are unpredictable, more than
>> you. They also don't obey rules, like you. Throw in some blind
>> corners. PLUS they crash into you.
>>
>>
>
> They don't crash into me. I think you need to be more careful.

I actually know a guy that had a kid on a bike run into the side of his
gorgeous, unrestored '62 Impala SS convertible. Stuff like that seems
to only happen to people with really special cars for some reason.

nate

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

Nate Nagel

Peter Cole wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>
>> In article <1oKdnVPJdY86zwDbnZ2dnUVZ_u_inZ2d@comcast.com>, Peter Cole
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Brent P wrote:
>
>
>> Body shop labor is $46/hr here. Figure it out.
>>
>>>>>>> I think the new law is a good one. It is similar to places with
>>>>>>> larger bike cultures like Germany. I've argued for it here (MA),
>>>>>>> but the local "advocates" are "vehicularists" and resist any idea
>>>>>>> that would upset parity. I'm sorry, until the laws of physics
>>>>>>> give us parity, the state laws shouldn't either.
>>
>>
>>>>>> I think it's a good law, but it comes with following the vehicle
>>>>>> code. If you throw out the vehicle code well then, you 'take your
>>>>>> chances'.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> It doesn't "come from the vehicle code", it is the vehicle code.
>>>>> There's nothing to say rules for cars and bikes have to be the
>>>>> same, for ROW or anything else. Think outside the box.
>>>>
>>>> Um. that's not what I wrote. I wrote that it comes WITH. If you
>>>> can't read, usenet might not be the place for you.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Sorry, WTF does "it's a good law, but it comes with following the
>>> vehicle code" mean?
>>
>>
>> If you aren't going to obey the passing spacing laws, why should the
>> driver?
>
>
>
> You're equating minor cosmetic damage to your car with serious bodily
> harm/death. Do you realize how crazy that sounds?

I equally want to avoid both. I can't afford the repairs, and a ticket
could literally cost me my job, depending on how severe it is.

nate

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

Nate Nagel

Frank Krygowski wrote:
> At the very least, he should study Zoot and
> learn to cuss with style. ;-)

I do not think that word means what you think it means. He comes across
on a good day as an angry, unpleasant person and on a bad day as
borderline mentally ill.

nate

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

Nate Nagel

Peter Cole wrote:
> Dane Buson wrote:
>
>> Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>
>>>> The poor dears must actually believe the TV car commercials - the
>>>> ones that show that buying the "new 2007 Belchmobile" will magically
>>>> remove all other cars from the road. (How _do_ the ad producers
>>>> keep all other cars out of their shots?) When they harness
>>>> themselves to another $30,000 debt and find themselves still stuck
>>>> in traffic, they feel angry.
>>>
>>> Funny thing is, last weekend my neighbor & I were comparing gross
>>> vehicle weights & hp of our repective vehicles (we're both kind of
>>> motor heads). Turns out his "hot rod" 70's 'Vette isn't that much
>>> different than my '95 minivan (AKA brain fart) -- and mine is
>>> sluggish by current standards. We're cranking out faster & faster
>>> cars while the logistics (congestion & economics) are pushing back
>>> hard -- there's a real logical disconnect. Well, it wasn't so long
>>> ago that many/most thought DWI/DUI was no big deal either.
>>
>>
>> I'm personally in favour of graduated licensing and possibly graduated
>> taxation, both based on engine displacement[1]. Short of myself getting
>> appointed President for life, I don't see that happening in the US.
>>
>> [1] Other countries have implemented exactly these measures.
>>
>
> I think that perhaps the fairest thing to do is just raise the taxes on
> gas (also something other countries have done in a big way), that way
> you wouldn't be penalized for having a guzzler, just for driving it.
> But, at a time when people are indignant over the price of gas, having
> the government make it "artificially" higher seems like a no-starter --
> rational, but a no-starter. What does that say?

I think the concern is the impact on low-income people who rely on
personal cars for transportation (i.e. they live in areas with no public
transport.) If that objection could be disposed of in a fair manner I
agree with you 100%, raise gas taxes. It needs to be done.

nate

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