Today's Forum Topics
Set as homepage
|
View
New Forum Topics Today's Forum Topics Set as homepage |
 |
|
|||||||
| |
||||
Welcome to CyclingForums.com You are currently viewing our website as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions. You will have to register before you can post to this thread. By joining our free online community you will have access to post new topics, communicate privately with other cyclingforums.com members (PM), respond to polls, upload photos and access other special features like product reviews and classifieds. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
19-07.-2007, 12:05 PM
|
#181 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: OT: joining the ranks of two wheelers again
In article <469ebdaa$0$16267$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>, Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> Nate Nagel wrote: >> 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. > > Zoot on motor vehicles can come across like M*k* V*nd*m*n on mountain > bicycles. Is that guy still around? I took my road bike on a mountain bike trail recently. That trail was more 'natural' and free of ruts or other signs of human use than the hiking only trails. In fact it was full of loose rocks on the surface that had built up from lack of use by anyone. (it was on a rather steep slope) |
|
|
19-07.-2007, 12:18 PM
|
#182 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: OT: joining the ranks of two wheelers again
Zoot Katz wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 21:37:28 -0500, Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman > <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>> Graduated licensing starting with proof you've ridden a bicycle for >>> two years without mishap or a moving violation. Then you can get a >>> license for a moped. Another year without problems and you're >>> eligible for up to 499 cc motorcycles for a year, or until you're 19. >>> After that let the motorcycle license be issued or you can opt for >>> two years driving a car. It must be a car that requires learning real >>> driving skills. Something with all the comforts and technology of a >>> 1950's English sports car or early beetle. >> Is bailing water from the floor with a turkey baster every time it rains >> really a necessary skill (after spending 10 minutes wrestling the top >> up)? Or getting frostbite from driving in cold weather? > > You don't like bailing? - Stick to motorcycles. > > Even a six-volt Lucas system could run electric socks and mitts. I have bad childhood memories of freezing in the back of a VW Type IV. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
|
|
|
19-07.-2007, 12:21 PM
|
#183 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: OT: joining the ranks of two wheelers again
Brent P wrote:
> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote: >> >> Zoot on motor vehicles can come across like M*k* V*nd*m*n on mountain >> bicycles. > > Is that guy still around? He Who Must Not Be Named was posting his anti-MTB screeds on rec.bicycles.soc and alt.mountain-bike as recently as yesterday.  -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
|
|
|
19-07.-2007, 08:47 PM
|
#184 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: OT: joining the ranks of two wheelers again
Nate Nagel wrote:
> 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 > Yeah, and I know a guy (cyclist) who is paralyzed neck down from a left-hooking motorist. One is tragic, the other trivial. |
|
|
|
19-07.-2007, 08:52 PM
|
#185 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: OT: joining the ranks of two wheelers again
Nate Nagel wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote: >> >> 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 > You better avoid parking lots then, that's a much more likely source of the kind of minor cosmetic damage a bike can cause. I don't know what your job is, but it's hard to imagine one that would terminate you for a biking ticket. I think you guys are stretching reality past the breaking point. |
|
|
|
19-07.-2007, 09:02 PM
|
#186 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: OT: joining the ranks of two wheelers again
Nate Nagel wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote: >> Bottom line, I'm one of the most risk-averse cyclists I know, with >> lots of miles under my belt. There are very few true "acts of god". >> Virtually all crashes are avoidable. >> > > And yet you believe in ignoring the law. somehow this does not compute. Not all laws, just some ROW laws. That's a personal choice and not one I advocate, but I do advocate modifying the ROW rules to be more inline with the realities of cycling. I firmly believe ROW rules are about efficiency, not safety. Traffic could function perfectly well without signals & signs, just much less efficiently. Specifically, I would like to see (for bikes): no need for stopping for right on red, red lights being treated as stop signs (stop & go), stops signs as yield signs (slow & go). That's pretty much what I've always done, and it works well for me without causing any problems for others. |
|
|
|
19-07.-2007, 09:48 PM
|
#187 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: OT: joining the ranks of two wheelers again
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote: >> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote: >>> ... >>> Some local streets even ban bicycles. >> >> Some also ban cars. As far as I know, any attempt to ban bikes while >> allowing other vehicles has not stood up to challenge. If you have >> other examples I'd like to hear them. > > St. Mary's Road east of Romine Street: > <http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?searchtype=address&country=US&addtohistory=&searchtab=home&formtype=address&popflag=0&latitude=&longitude=&name=&phone=&level=&cat=&address=st.+mary%27s+road+and+s.+lincoln+avenue&city=urbana&state=il&zipcode=>. > That looks like it's part of the university campus. > >>>> If local authorities tried to do it, state authorities would >>>> override, if states tried it, the feds would override. Right of free >>>> passage on public lands is sacrosanct. >>> >>> The US is not the UK, and the use of many public lands is severely >>> restricted. >> >> How so? > > I see a lot of "No Trespassing, Government Property" signs. Me too on military bases. > > Much public parkland is off-limits to cyclists in the US [1]. It's off limits to vehicles. One consequence of vehicular cycling is that we get lumped in with motorized off-road vehicles. > There is not the same right for public access along centuries old > footpaths in the US as exists in the UK, even when they are on private > property. Oh, I don't know. My house is on a corner, one street is a "private way". Legally, I (and my neighbors) own the street, but we are obliged to allow free passage on it even though the city has no responsibility to maintain it (we keep it paved). |
|
|
|
19-07.-2007, 10:06 PM
|
#188 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: OT: joining the ranks of two wheelers again
Zoot Katz wrote:
> That our advocacy groups push for bike lanes and separate facilities > puts me at odds with their agenda. However I think a "vehicular > cycling" approach to teaching bicycling is good. It gives riders > lacking confidence and/or knowledge a reasonably sound method for > taking their place as traffic. > > After they get some miles under their butts let them modify the > strategies to suit their surroundings. Agreed. > > I admire the courage of Hans Monderman and Davd Enwicht for taking a > kick conventional traffic management practises. I have observed that > chaos or amusement can have visibly positive effects on traffic flow > in terms of slowing it back down to a human scale. They're onto > something there but I have little hope it will enter North American > planning discussions any time soon. I grew up (boomer) in one of the early burb-prototypes. I watched it get malled into drive-thru hell. As an adult, I lived in urban areas, finally settling in a semi-urban area, but do weekly at least rides into more rural areas. What I have seen over my lifetime, and it seems with acceleration in the past decade, is a growing dominance of the automobile in all these areas. What goes along with this is a growing intolerance for bikes. What people seem to not get is that further accommodations only make things worse -- uglier, noisier, more sprawled -- destroying the quality of life. I think the only rational solution is to roll back the role of the car, restricting access, lowering speeds, regulating operation, etc. When you get on a bike you become the canary in the coal mine. You can't really see what the car has done until you get out of the car. |
|
|
|
19-07.-2007, 10:25 PM
|
#189 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: OT: joining the ranks of two wheelers again
Zoot Katz wrote:
> I think another conflicting signal for the brain is the melding of > public and private domains. > > You're all comfy in your car. It has all the comforts of home; food, > drink, entertaining diversions, climate control, upholstered couch, > etc. People think they're at home so are entitled to be rude to > uninvited encroachments by strangers. They're not considering driving > as a public act. Lacking normal social interactions they fail to make > the connection that driving occurs in a public space. Good point, one I hadn't really thought about. > Madison Ave. sells fantasies to millions needing an identity. The > advertising is so pervasive in our culture pliable minds identify > with the products they're fed. The automobile industry buys the most > advertising of any industry. People end up identifying with their > car. It's the image that they want to project to the world. "Ooh > look, he/she must be cool/hot/smart/rich to drive that car" and "Get > out of my way. Can't you see I'm sexier/smarter/richer than you > because I drive this special car" It seems that Madison Ave. used to exercise a little restraint in selling cars ("professional driver on closed course" disclaimers and all that), but they don't even make token gestures any more. It seems like one of the first "sizing up" questions is "what do you drive?". I have a degree in mechanical engineering, worked for some years in the hi-tech side of the industry, owned many cars (including some "hot" ones), still own 2, and am a fair mechanic. I really like cars. I also really like cigarettes, fried food and cocaine. |
|
|
|
19-07.-2007, 10:38 PM
|
#190 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: OT: joining the ranks of two wheelers again
Zoot Katz <zootkatz@operamail.com> said in rec.autos.driving:
>>Is bailing water from the floor with a turkey baster every time it rains >>really a necessary skill (after spending 10 minutes wrestling the top >>up)? Or getting frostbite from driving in cold weather? > >You don't like bailing? - Stick to motorcycles. Oh, yeah - THAT will keep you warmer and drier. -- MFFYCam Videos Galore: http://www.geocities.com/mffycam/ http://slothkills.blip.tv/ |
|
|
|
19-07.-2007, 10:58 PM
|
#191 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: OT: joining the ranks of two wheelers again
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 20:42:54 GMT, Arif Khokar <akhokar1234@wvu.edu>
wrote: >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? I learned during Driver Education that doing what is expected is sometimes safer than doing what is legal. If everyone is doing 70 in a 55 zone, and I do 55, I'm the road hazard. Same with biking. It may be legal to "take the lane", but I am not a sprinter and I can't go 20 or 30 mph unless I'm going downhill with the wind. So, getting in a lane of cars, and going my usual 12 mph (on the high end of my average) is simply not smart and not considerate. Someone doing 12mph in a lane in NYC is going to get splattered and deserve it. Well, that assumes that the traffic is moving of course. This does not mean that I never take a lane or see others do it. There are some stretches on my commute where I'm going downhill and can hit 25mph, which is what most of the cars are doing, and I am in a lane then. And I often see messengers in the middle of five lanes of traffic moving along at traffic speed. Good for them. I really take issue with the whole "I'm equivalent to a car" biking attitude. I understand it, but I disagree. I'm not a car. I can't go as fast, I can't accelerate as fast, and I can't do as much damage when something goes wrong. I run lights, but never without being very careful. I run stop signs, but not without being careful. I'm not a car. I do not follow all the rules of cars unless I'm driving one. And then I go 70 if everyone else is doing so. |
|
|
|
19-07.-2007, 11:02 PM
|
#192 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: OT: joining the ranks of two wheelers again
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 15:44:23 -0500, tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com
(Brent P) wrote: >In article <mjin93h1guj5fhkpp4f71cabrbggnhho84@4ax.com>, dgk wrote: > >> Bikes actually wait in lines of cars? How odd. I don't think that I've >> ever seen anyone do that. > >I don't like gutter passers and other sorts of illegal lane usage so I >don't do them. > >> I thread my way to the front, and if the right front car is turning >> (which can often be deduced by either a turn signal or the way the >> front wheels are pointing), I wait on the left of that car for the >> light to change. > >If I were driving I would find that behavior irritating, needing to pass >a bicyclist multiple times because he threaded up to the front of a >queue. Because I would find it irritating, I don't do it myself when >biking. When I've encountered bicyclists like this, I don't pass them >with a full lane the second time. The third time I make NO effort to give >them space. > >> This way I can get to work in my normal hour and twenty minutes (15 >> miles). If I actually waited in line at every light (thus pissing off >> the car behind me who wants to go fast when the light changes) > >I out accelerate most cars (as typically driven) from a dead stop. If they >are going to need to pass me, it will be when they catch up to me >becausewhich is usually no closer than the far side of the intersection >and sometimes a couple of blocks. It's the car in front of me that >slows me down, driving or biking. The lights in my burg (New York City) are timed for around 35mph, actually above the speed limit. I can't keep up with that, or even close. So for me to take a lane is very inconsiderate. I do not expect cars to have to switch lanes to avoid me. I'm not a car, I'm a bike. |
|
|
|
19-07.-2007, 11:07 PM
|
#193 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: OT: joining the ranks of two wheelers again
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 22:40:22 -0700, Scott en Aztlán
<scottenaztlan@yahoo.com> wrote: >dgk <dgk@somewhere.com> said in rec.autos.driving: > >>>> A bicyclist threads his way forward along the right hand side of the >>>> queue, next to the curb, until he is parallel to me at the right side >>>> of my lane. As the light goes green, this dipshit proceeds STRAIGHT >>>> across the intersection, directly crossing my intended turn line. >> >>Forcing you to wait a whole three seconds. > >The duration of the wait is irrelevant. It's still MFFY to make >someone wait while you steal their right-of-way, even if it's 3 >microseconds. Really, you mean like the cars that speed up to pass me so they can make a right turn forcing me to yield to them or hit them? And like I said, if someone is waiting to turn right, I usually get on their left. |
|
|
|
19-07.-2007, 11:08 PM
|
#194 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: OT: joining the ranks of two wheelers again
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 15:45:35 -0400, Peter Cole
<peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote: >pjhartman@gmail.com wrote: >> On Jul 15, 3:41 pm, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote: >>> In article <Odumi.7354$rR.1...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, >>> Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS <xeton2...@yahoo.com> writes: >> >>> What you /will/ experience is socially inept drivers who >>> think they can haul-up beside you on the stop lines, instead >>> of queueing in an orderly manner behind you, as they would >>> for any other vehicle -- and then hang a right turn from your >>> left side, right in front of you as you try to go straight. >> >> Last week I had the opposite experience. I'm riding a motorcycle, and >> am stopped in the right hand lane of a multilane intersection, with my >> right turn signal blinking, indicating my intention to turn right once >> the "NO RIGHT TURNS" light goes off (which will be in concert with my >> green.) >> >> A bicyclist threads his way forward along the right hand side of the >> queue, next to the curb, until he is parallel to me at the right side >> of my lane. As the light goes green, this dipshit proceeds STRAIGHT >> across the intersection, directly crossing my intended turn line. >> >> I shoulda taken out his rear tire just for spite, and next time he >> tries it, I will. >> >> >> > >He was probably just trying to follow the law as he understood it (bikes >stay as far to the right as possible). Maybe you should have maimed him >to straighten him out. > >Personally, I would have just gone to the left of you and straight >through the red. > >Speaking of motorcycles, how come the noise laws are never enforced. I'm >forever getting my ears rung by some old fat guy with open pipes. NYC just passed a new noise law that should get those guys off the road. Most motorcycles are not obnoxious, but when I hear a bike blocks off and heading away, I really want them dead. Anyone with that little consideration for others should simply be removed. |
|
|
|
19-07.-2007, 11:33 PM
|
#195 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: OT: joining the ranks of two wheelers again
On Jul 18, 12:38 pm, Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Ed.Toro...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Jul 16, 4:18 pm, Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net> wrote: > >> I never bother to slow down, never mind stop, for right turns or "T" > >> intersections -- why go to the trouble? You're not actually taking up a > >> lane. Otherwise I treat reds like stops (pause, look & go), and stops > >> like yields (slow & go). My bike's heavy, but not 2 tons and I'm strong, > >> but not 200hp. > > > Yeah, you're one of the bicycling twits who add to the danger of my > > ride. Idiots who do a swooping right turn right through a red or a > > stop sign. Generally without a care, and certainly not looking to the > > left before doing their swoop. > > Not me. I don't go anywhere I don't have a sight line, legally or > otherwise. To quote you again: > >> I never bother to slow down, never mind stop, for right turns or "T" > >> intersections -- why go to the trouble? That sounds like a swoop right-hand turn through a stop sign or red light. I see swoopers like that often enough. > What's your beef? Dangerous cycling or illegal cycling? My beef is with dangerous cycling, including but not limited to right- turn swoopers, wrong-way larrys, red-light runners, stop-sign runners, black-wearing lightless iPod listeners riding at night, the dudes who draft you on busy city streets; this is also illegal cycling. I am one of the faster riders out there, so I have to get around the slower cyclists. But it's not illegal to be slower, nor is it particularly dangerous; the onus is on me to get around them. > They're not the same you know. Lot's of really bad (dangerous) > cyclists/drivers out there obeying the letter, if not the spirit, of the > law. It's a little difficult to imagine how dangerous someone can be while obeying the letter of the law. Of course, if they're bad and dangerous if they're obeying the law, how on earth will they ride/drive if they disobey the law? Not safer, that's for sure. > Believe it or not, avoiding collisions with bikes is way easier than > with cars -- I thought that would be obvious, but you guys seem to be > doing a lot of crashing into bikes & kids -- maybe you ought to rethink > the way you cycle. I don't believe that avoiding collisions is easier when cycling than when driving. Most cyclists realize that they have much more incentive to avoid even a minor scrape because it will hurt a lot more than a minor scrape to a car's paint. Just because you haven't been in a collision recently doesn't mean that you are riding safely. Fortunately, most of the time, when we do something silly it's not enough to cause an accident--often because other road users do their part to avoid the collision. So when you swoop out from a side street into my path, 99% or the time I can hit my brakes or swerve and not hit you. It's the 1% event, when I can't avoid the collision, that's going to hurt. And it's your fault, because you ran the red light or stop sign. As you so blithely admit to doing all the time, as quoted above. |
|
|
Linear Mode
