Re: OT: joining the ranks of two wheelers again

Bill Sornson

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> Thank you for fixing your user name. Now the other two primary
> offenders need to follow suit.
>
>> ...
>> I've been told my riding skills are excellent, but I doubt they are
>> as great as Jobst's or Armstrong's or a long-time pro bike
>> messenger....
>
> Was Armstrong an exceptionally good bicycle rider from that
> standpoint? A successful road racer only needs to be competent enough
> as a rider to avoid crashing - power output relative to weight and/or
> frontal area is what wins races.

Armstrong was outstanding at handling his bike. Watch the video of his "mad
descent" /before/ whatzisface crashes, followed of course by that crazy zag
thru the grassy field. Also his finishes thru the throngs -- more frenzied
for him than most others, it seemed.

The man could ride.

Bill "closing in on 20,000 road miles crash-free (but tomorrow's another
day)" S.

r15757@aol.com

On Jul 19, 9:17 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:

> Somewhere around the 1940s or 1950s, American society decided that no
> mode of transport counted for much except cars. ...

The streetcar lines were being ripped out as early as the 1920s.

Robert

Nate Nagel

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>> ...
>> Heh. I actually agree with this. I learned to drive on a Renault
>> Encore and an International Harvester Scout II. I feel that I am a
>> MUCH better driver for the experience of driving those vehicles - the
>> Renault was an underpowered piece of crap, and the IH while excellent
>> off road certainly required full attention on the road....
>
>
> I had a Renault Encore, and except for the poor reliability did not
> think it was that bad of a car (my previous vehicles being a VW Rabbit
> that literally collapsed from rust, a MG Midget, and 1973 Olds Cutlass
> Supreme with a broken power steering pump, and a Chevy van. The Encore
> was a great car for fast driving on dirt roads due to the greater than
> normal ground clearance and relatively soft suspension. The Encore also
> handled exceptionally well on pavement for a vehicle so softly sprung.
> Of course, the Civic Si that replaced the Encore (thank you, DUI woman)
> was vastly better in every way.
>
>> People who learn to drive on good cars tend to rely on the car to keep
>> them out of trouble much more than people who learned to drive on
>> barely-legal shite.
>
>
> The Chevy van I drove had bald rear tires and one rear brake that locked
> up much earlier than the other three. Winter driving in practically
> anything else was easy after that.
>

You must have had a later Encore with the "big" 1.7 liter engine; my
mom's was an '84 with a 1.4, and I honestly remember having to drop to
second and floor it to pass some cyclists, and even then it was a dead
heat for a while. There was a long upgrade on the nearest main highway
right before the exit I'd get off at to get to my parents' house; it
couldn't pull it in fourth gear, in third you could sort-of do it, but
still you were only doing maybe 50 MPH by the time you reached the top.

Oddly enough, we had no reliability issues whatsoever with the car,
except in really cold weather it would only run on two cylinders for a
while until something unfroze. It just was so gutless it was literally
dangerous to drive. It was replaced with an '86 Golf which was a vastly
superior car in every way; my mom just sold it to a neighbor a few weeks
ago (she's now driving my '02 GTI 1.8T)

nate

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

Nate Nagel

Zoot Katz wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 21:54:26 -0500, russotto@grace.speakeasy.net
> (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
>
>
>>>The road rage phenomenon is disturbing, and as Zoot so elegantly points
>>>out, it's something that's generated inside a car.
>>
>>Zoot rather points out the opposite; he's a cyclist, and even on
>>Usenet he's quite vitriolic.
>
>
> Can you honestly say you've not experienced extreme or unnatural
> anger inside your car? Perhaps even a level of anger you don't
> normally reach when outside your car? Can you honestly say you've
> never considered using your car or other ready implement as a weapon
> while you were having your widdle traffic tantrums?

Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, pot.

Seriously, listen to yourself. then get help. You accuse others of
rage when you're the one foaming at the mouth.

nate

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

Peter Cole

r15757@aol.com wrote:
> On Jul 18, 2:45 pm, Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> ... 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". ...
>
> Didn't you claim a while back to use the Charles River MUP quite often?
>

Sure, still do, but not when I'm trying to get somewhere usually.

To clarify, I'm not opposed to MUP's, I don't like riding most of them
very much (CRP being somewhat of an exception), but more broadly, I
don't see segregation as the solution to traffic conflict.

As I said previously, I think the best solution is designated bike
routes, which would be shared roads (which already exist) modified to be
bicycle friendly. Those modifications should emphasize control of motor
vehicle speed rather than consist of painted lanes.

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman

Nate Nagel wrote:
> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
>> Nate Nagel wrote:
>>
>>> ...
>>> Heh. I actually agree with this. I learned to drive on a Renault
>>> Encore and an International Harvester Scout II. I feel that I am a
>>> MUCH better driver for the experience of driving those vehicles - the
>>> Renault was an underpowered piece of crap, and the IH while excellent
>>> off road certainly required full attention on the road....
>>
>>
>> I had a Renault Encore, and except for the poor reliability did not
>> think it was that bad of a car (my previous vehicles being a VW Rabbit
>> that literally collapsed from rust, a MG Midget, and 1973 Olds Cutlass
>> Supreme with a broken power steering pump, and a Chevy van. The Encore
>> was a great car for fast driving on dirt roads due to the greater than
>> normal ground clearance and relatively soft suspension. The Encore
>> also handled exceptionally well on pavement for a vehicle so softly
>> sprung. Of course, the Civic Si that replaced the Encore (thank you,
>> DUI woman) was vastly better in every way.
>>
>>> People who learn to drive on good cars tend to rely on the car to
>>> keep them out of trouble much more than people who learned to drive
>>> on barely-legal shite.
>>
>>
>> The Chevy van I drove had bald rear tires and one rear brake that
>> locked up much earlier than the other three. Winter driving in
>> practically anything else was easy after that.
>>
>
> You must have had a later Encore with the "big" 1.7 liter engine; my
> mom's was an '84 with a 1.4, and I honestly remember having to drop to
> second and floor it to pass some cyclists, and even then it was a dead
> heat for a while. There was a long upgrade on the nearest main highway
> right before the exit I'd get off at to get to my parents' house; it
> couldn't pull it in fourth gear, in third you could sort-of do it, but
> still you were only doing maybe 50 MPH by the time you reached the top.

Yes, my Encore was a 1987 with the 1.7L engine. The 1.4 was adequate for
the several hundred pounds lighter R5 (aka Le Car). I had done some
driving at the same time in a borrowed VW Type II which makes almost
anything feel fast (except the Chevy C60 work truck which would not
exceed 50-mph).

> Oddly enough, we had no reliability issues whatsoever with the car,
> except in really cold weather it would only run on two cylinders for a
> while until something unfroze. It just was so gutless it was literally
> dangerous to drive. It was replaced with an '86 Golf which was a vastly
> superior car in every way; my mom just sold it to a neighbor a few weeks
> ago (she's now driving my '02 GTI 1.8T)

My Encore had the radiator fail, the air conditioning fail, the heater
core fail (replaced under recall), the shift linkage break, the
speedometer/odometer break, the parking brake linkage seize and a couple
wheel bearings fail, all at less than 60,000 miles. When the car was 7
years old, one of the brackets holding the anti-roll bar rusted enough
to break, and the end of the bar went into the sidewall of a front tire
while I was driving on the freeway [1]. The only thing worse in
reliability was my British Leyland made Midget.

[1] This was as exciting as the time I lost a wheel on a R5 (three bolt
wheel). The holes in the (low-strength) steel wheel deformed enough that
the wheel came off over the still attached lug nuts.


--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Peter Cole

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
>> In article <h092n4-vrf.ln1@curare.zuvembi.homelinux.org>,
>> Dane Buson <zuvembi@unixbigots.org> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm personally in favour of graduated licensing and possibly graduated
>>> taxation, both based on engine displacement[1].
>>
>> Ah, so you're a fan of rotaries and turbocharging?
>
> Find an old Fiat 850 and a wrecked Honda S2000. Cram the Honda engine in
> the Fiat and add a supercharger.
>

Having owned a Fiat 850 for many years, I realize that vehicles at that
power level are quite practical, and even a lot of fun. I never really
enjoyed driving heavier vehicles after that.

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman

r15757@aol.com aka Robert who? wrote:
> On Jul 18, 9:10 am, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> ...
>> Multi-user paths for transportation purposes are similar, except the few
>> that serve as useful short cuts. (MUPs make fine linear parks for those
>> who like them, but those should be paid for by park funds, not
>> transportation funds.)
>
> Nonsense. Where fully separated MUPS have been installed through
> densely populated areas they have uniformly become highly useful and
> important corridors for transportational cycling. I suggest you go
> somewhere and experience what you apparently cannot even imagine.

I think they should put horizontal bars across the paths at about 1
meter above the ground. This would discourage all users but those on
recumbent trikes and lowracers.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman

r15757@aol.com aka Robert who? wrote:
> On Jul 17, 9:22 pm, Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
> <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>> Nate Nagel wrote:
>>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>>> Oh, get over yourself. Nobody takes those laws seriously other than a
>>>>> priggish, sanctimonious minority of bike riders. Live large, what are
>>>>> they going to do, revoke your license? Heh.
>>>> You sound an awful lot like the Harley rider who passed me on the
>>>> shoulder and then started cussing me out because I didn't immediately
>>>> jam on the brakes to let him merge in because "it was his life I was
>>>> risking."
>>> Sorry, I don't follow that comparison.
>>>> No, dumbass, YOU are risking YOUR life when you don't play by the
>>>> rules. It is rare that I can honestly say that I wouldn't have
>>>> sympathy for someone when something bad happens to them, but when
>>>> you're playing Darwin's little helper, c'est la vie.
>>> 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.
>>
>> Please don't complain when laws are passed requiring cyclists to use
>> second class facilities such as MUPs and "bike lanes", since your
>> actions help bring about support for these laws.
>
> IMO, a cyclist taking the lane lawfully on a narrow busy road is far
> more likely to lead to restrictions than the typical scofflaw.

One has to use some sense. For instance, when riding on a street with
occasional parked motor vehicles, I will take the lane some distance in
advance when passing cars to stay well out of the door opening zone,
then drift over to the right once past the parked vehicle(s) to let the
motor vehicles pass. If the motorists are not completely brain dead,
they figure out what I am doing is not intended to impede them.

The CM type stunts of deliberately blocking motor vehicle traffic, or
riding on the freeway [1] to "prove a point" are an entirely different
matter. While they make raise the self-esteem of the participants, the
overall effect is counterproductive to cyclists’ rights and treatment.

[1] Like the Chicago CM ride a few years back that went on the Ike.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Peter Cole

Wayne Pein wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:
>
>> Wayne Pein wrote:
>>
>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>
>>>> Wayne Pein wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You should be thankful that you have the rights of a driver of a
>>>>> vehicle rather than the rights of a pedestrian when cycling.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Just curious, how do you think the rights of a cyclist surpass those
>>>> of a pedestrian?
>>>
>>>
>>> I never said they surpass those of a pedestrian. They are just very
>>> different.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I never was a runner, but I always thought running in the street
>> wouldn't be much different rule wise. What do you see as the
>> differences? What would it mean to ride a bike with pedestrian rights?
>>
>
> Generally, pedestrians walk facing traffic when in the roadway.
> Pedestrians in the roadway must step off the roadway when a vehicle
> approaches. When available, pedestrians must use the shoulder or a
> sidewalk. Depending on the situation, ROW/yielding rules may favor
> drivers of vehicles or pedestrians.

As near as I can tell, when sidewalks aren't available, the rules for
bikes and peds are pretty much the same (I haven't seen the "step off
the roadway" law).

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman

Peter Cole wrote:
> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
>> Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
>>> In article <h092n4-vrf.ln1@curare.zuvembi.homelinux.org>,
>>> Dane Buson <zuvembi@unixbigots.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm personally in favour of graduated licensing and possibly graduated
>>>> taxation, both based on engine displacement[1].
>>>
>>> Ah, so you're a fan of rotaries and turbocharging?
>>
>> Find an old Fiat 850 and a wrecked Honda S2000. Cram the Honda engine
>> in the Fiat and add a supercharger.
>>
>
> Having owned a Fiat 850 for many years, I realize that vehicles at that
> power level are quite practical, and even a lot of fun. I never really
> enjoyed driving heavier vehicles after that.

Driving commercial size trucks can be fun, because there is a lot more
involvement necessary. People also tend to NOT do MFFY maneuvers to you,
since you will easily crush even the largest SUV in a collision.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Peter Cole

Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
> In article <g6mq931cfhgpab7f9a38mls1uh2nj453vk@4ax.com>,
> Zoot Katz <zootkatz@operamail.com> wrote:
>> Oh, I do love a good series of speed bumps.
>>
>> It's so much fun to hear you chuckle heads scrape bottom in your
>> desperate attempts to get ahead of the bicycle. I get to laugh at
>> your stupidity every time I have to steer around the busted plastic
>> car crap you filth-bags leave laying in the road..
>
> Here's one in the large "not pro-bike but anti-car" category. Speed bumps
> suck to go over on a (road) bike. Going around isn't much better, it
> results in going through the mushy gravel and dirt which accumulates
> there.

Speed "humps" don't present problems for bikes. Bumps are usually used
in parking lots, humps on streets.


> And it's pretty obnoxious to advocate for a device which damages cars,
> then call drivers "filth bags" because of the results of that damage.

Humps don't cause any serious damage, if any damage at all. They cause
no damage to those who obey the posted speed.

I think "filth bags" is reasonably accurate, MV traffic generates a lot
of filth.

Peter Cole

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:

> The motor vehicle operators are much ruder to other motor vehicle
> operators now than a couple of decades ago. The degree of rudeness can
> also be correlated to the amount of traffic.

More importantly, MVO's are much ruder to cyclists than they used to be.

Ten years ago I dusted off my bike after a 20 year hiatus. I had been a
regular street rider. On my first street ride I literally got ridden off
the road & wound up on some guy's lawn. I thought "Shit, things really
have changed". I found the hard way that I had to ride more aggressively
than was ever necessary before.

Brent P

In article <tpadnei4LsraPz3bnZ2dnUVZ_o6knZ2d@comcast.com>, Peter Cole wrote:

> Speed "humps" don't present problems for bikes.

I have to slow down for them... almost as slow as in my car... I
certainly can't go over them safely and comfortably at 25mph.

> Bumps are usually used in parking lots, humps on streets.

In reality, both are seen in various locations and each has less and more
annoying designs.

>> And it's pretty obnoxious to advocate for a device which damages cars,
>> then call drivers "filth bags" because of the results of that damage.

> Humps don't cause any serious damage, if any damage at all. They cause
> no damage to those who obey the posted speed.

BULLSHIT. On a 30mph street I was looking for parking one dark rainy
night, driving 10-15mph. One hump was not painted, I hit it and my
car's exhaust banged into it and scraped along it. The car is at the
factory height btw. If I had been going the speed limit, there would have
been significant damage.

> I think "filth bags" is reasonably accurate, MV traffic generates a lot
> of filth.

It's not 1932 anymore.