Re: OT: joining the ranks of two wheelers again

Brent P

In article <4MidnVBYRt3VVgbbnZ2dnUVZ_q7inZ2d@comcast.com>, Peter Cole wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article <1184610506.082144.138990@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>, pjhartman@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> When bicycling I've been waiting my turn in the queue when some dufus on
>> a bicycle will gutter pass his way to the front. Of course these people
>> aren't the type to take off fast either... Some run the red on top of it.
>> I find gutter passing bad form wether I'm biking or driving. Although I
>> was forced into a gutter pass mid block the other day. Traffic was stop
>> and go, so I left a gap between myself and the car in front of me on a go
>> phase. This woman decides to take that space just as the stop phase
>> begins, now I have no following distance and they (driver and
>> passenger) yelled 'get on the sidewalk' after cutting me off... instead
>> of locking up the brakes I just moved right and sailed past them to stop
>> where I would have had they not cut me off.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> Just pass the whole line on the left -- much faster, usually safer.

When legal, I do. Did that friday when a residential road I use had a
mile+ backup.

Arif Khokar

dgk wrote:

> Bikes actually wait in lines of cars? How odd. I don't think that I've
> ever seen anyone do that.

I do.

> 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.

And the driver may not see you if he decides to change lanes for
whatever reason. Riding like one drives is much safer.

> 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'm on a mountain bike, I'm overweight, yet I'm still capable of keeping
up with traffic when it starts moving after the light changes (at least
up to 20 mph. If cars want to go fast, then they can change lanes, or
pass you after you clear the intersection.

> I also go through red lights

The law doesn't make exemptions for cyclists regarding traffic lights.
IMO, if you don't typically run red lights while driving, you certainly
shouldn't do it while riding.

Brent P

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.

Peter Cole

Arif Khokar wrote:
> dgk wrote:

>> I also go through red lights
>
> The law doesn't make exemptions for cyclists regarding traffic lights.
> IMO, if you don't typically run red lights while driving, you certainly
> shouldn't do it while riding.

The law may not make "exemptions", but the penalties are completely
different. If you're a moral absolutist then you may argue that wrong is
wrong, but to me, it's a gray area. My experience is that it's often
safer and less obtrusive to traffic for cyclists to be flexible with the
law. YMMV. In any case, I'll risk the rare $20 ticket on a bike, but not
the much more expensive one with a car -- not to mention that I consider
the car infraction to be reckless to the safety of others, while biking
only endangers my own skin -- which I'll take full responsibility for,
thank you very much.

Peter Cole

Brent P wrote:

> You haven't lived until you've made a driver angry by preventing him from
> kissing up his front bumper to the rear bumper of a car in front of you.
>

Sure, that's one of the problems with "vehicular" cycling -- it really
pisses some drivers off. I'm convinced that many drivers think that it's
illegal for cyclists to be on the road at all, while others think it's
tolerable only if you never impede their progress (give unlimited
unilateral right of way). It's pointless to argue with these people, I
know, I've tried.

Arif Khokar

Peter Cole wrote:
> Arif Khokar wrote:
>> dgk wrote:

>>> I also go through red lights

>> The law doesn't make exemptions for cyclists regarding traffic lights.
>> IMO, if you don't typically run red lights while driving, you
>> certainly shouldn't do it while riding.

> The law may not make "exemptions", but the penalties are completely
> different.

No, they're the same in terms of safety, though you're far more likely
to get killed if you're broadsided by a car when riding.

If you're a moral absolutist then you may argue that wrong is
> wrong, but to me, it's a gray area. My experience is that it's often
> safer and less obtrusive to traffic for cyclists to be flexible with the
> law.

I don't see how running a red light is safer or less obtrusive. It's
one thing to be waiting behind a cyclist in queue, but it's certainly
another when you see a cyclist cross the intersection in front of you
while you have a green light. It's even worse if you don't see the
cyclist in time.

> YMMV. In any case, I'll risk the rare $20 ticket on a bike, but not
> the much more expensive one with a car -- not to mention that I consider
> the car infraction to be reckless to the safety of others, while biking
> only endangers my own skin -- which I'll take full responsibility for,
> thank you very much.

If you get hit while running a red light, it's certainly a problem for
the driver that hit you, regardless of your mode of transportation.
Just because you're riding a bicycle doesn't mean that the driver who
hits you gets to say, oh it's just a bike and drive away. In either
case, you contribute to creating an accident scene which will tie up
traffic for several hours.

Peter Cole

Arif Khokar wrote:
>
> If you get hit while running a red light, it's certainly a problem for
> the driver that hit you, regardless of your mode of transportation.

Usually not, from what I've seen (no charges are typically filed).

> Just
> because you're riding a bicycle doesn't mean that the driver who hits
> you gets to say, oh it's just a bike and drive away. In either case,
> you contribute to creating an accident scene which will tie up traffic
> for several hours.

Only if I'm dead, in which case I doubt that it will matter to me --
call me insensitive.

Peter Cole

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.

It's not illegal here (MA). Are you sure it's illegal where you are?

>> 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.

That sounds pretty menacing. In stop & go traffic, it's pretty hit or
miss whether or not the cars you pass ever pass you again, sometimes you
repeatedly pass each other, sometimes not. Even if you do repeatedly
pass, why should the motorist be entitled to irritation? It makes as
much sense for me to be irritated about having to filter forward again.

> 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.

Right, and I see no more reason to be less irritated by a car in my way
than a bike. In urban scenes I can usually flow through traffic much
faster than the traffic is moving. I see no reason to park myself behind
a tailpipe.

Nate Nagel

Peter Cole wrote:
> N8N wrote:
>
>> On Jul 16, 12:20 pm, Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Nate Nagel wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tom Keats wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <Odumi.7354$rR.1...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
>>>>> Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS <xeton2...@yahoo.com>
>>>>> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Nate Nagel wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I sincerely hope that I don't start doing the things that I see
>>>>>>> bikers doing on the roads all the time that pisses me off while
>>>>>>> driving (mostly blowing stop signs,
>>>>>
>>>>> The so-called "California stop" is not exclusively
>>>>> a cyclists' sin.
>>>>
>>>> No, but blatantly blowing them at full speed is. I regularly drive to
>>>> the Metro station, which happens to be along a marked bike route. I'd
>>>> say 75% of the riders I see don't even bother to slow down for stop
>>>> signs. I'm honestly scared that I will miss one someday... I'm not
>>>> sure how they stay alive, unless they are actually looking both ways
>>>> and
>>>> I'm just not seeing them do it.
>>>> I honestly don't care if they do a "california stop" but seeing a biker
>>>> suddenly shoot across the intersection at 20 MPH as you're preparing to
>>>> step on the gas is a little unnerving.
>>>> nate
>>>
>>> Motorists are just plain annoying -- they're always in the way, clogging
>>> up the roads and forming long lines at intersections. Why should I be
>>> forced to wait for them?
>>>
>>> To add insult to injury, motorists fantasize that they "pay for the
>>> roads", even though their road hog related contributions only add up to
>>> around 60% -- which includes the entire highway system, most of which
>>> we're not even allowed to enter. Add to that the fact that they're
>>> responsible for most of the wear & tear, creating potholes, etc. and
>>> requiring the massive overbuilding to carry their stinking bulk.
>>>
>>> Most car trips are not even of necessity. Drivers just willfully snarl
>>> up the streets with hourly "errands" to fast food drive-thru's,
>>> excursions to Wal-Mart and cruising for yard sales.
>>>
>>> If the pudgy, latte chugging, cell yakking, SUV jockeys had an ounce of
>>> common courtesy, they'd just pull over when the see a bike approach and
>>> let us by their spewing hulks. Why on earth should I stop for them?
>>> What's the point of riding a bike anyway, to act like a car? I'm tired
>>> of both subsidizing and accommodating these rude and selfish creeps.
>>> Ooooh -- I startled one! Made him drop his Mcmuffin. Boo Hoo.
>>
>>
>> Ah, I guess it was only a matter of time before the "arrogant asshole
>> cyclist contingent" showed up.
>>
>> Here's a homework assignment for you: please post the section in your
>> state motor vehicle code where a bicycle acting as a vehicle (that is,
>> being ridden on the street) is exempt from any laws involving stop
>> signs or right of way.
>>
>> nate
>>
>
> 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."

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. It's only too bad that some poor
cager might have to live with the memory of running you over, even if he
was "dead right."

nate

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

Nate Nagel

Peter Cole wrote:
> Luigi de Guzman wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 13:41:06 -0400, 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.
>>
>>
>> Depends on the jurisdiction. The "reckless driving" statute in Virginia
>> states:
>
>
> I'm not "driving". That's the whole point.

If you're riding on a public road, you are.

nate

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

Nate Nagel

frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jul 16, 1:56 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P)
> wrote:
>
>>In article <mf-dnVjhHMkvMAbbnZ2dnUVZ_hOdn...@comcast.com>, 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.
>
>
> They could certainly ticket a cyclist. It happens.
>
>
>>I obey the vehicle code to the letter when bicycling. Why? A few reasons.
>>
>>1) I don't want to give a motorist any excuses. If he screws with me,
>>hurts me, whatever there is nothing I did wrong in any shape or form.
>>
>>2) When a cop decides to hassle me, I know he has no legal grounds to do
>>anything to me.
>>
>>3) Nothing pisses off a bicyclist hating motorist that following the
>>vehicle code to the letter.
>
>
> I guess there was a time I followed the laws to the letter, but I've
> relaxed a bit about stop signs now. I don't necessarily do the mini-
> track-stand I used to. Some I take at about 5 mph.
>
> But understand, I'm talking about stop signs where there's perfect
> visibility and absolutely nobody else to stop for - in fact, nobody
> else in sight. These occur in many suburban neighborhoods, and at
> quiet intersections out in the country. Even then, I'll put on a
> show, by slowing and conspicuously looking both ways. That's in case
> someone is watching. If there is
>
> Overall, my cycling behavior is better than most motorists'
> behavior.
>
> And for those car fans complaining about bicyclists flouting the law:
> I live across the street from a stop sign in a residential
> neighborhood. I estimate that less than 2/3 of the motorists actually
> stop. The rest roll through, with some going through at over 15 mph,
> by my guess.
>
> Hell, I've been stopped at a red light on my bike, and had a motorist
> pull up along side, look both ways, and run the red.
>
> And those 3000 pound vehicles are much more deadly than a 30 pound
> bike. Those operators need to be held to a higher standard.
>
> - Frank Krygowski
>

I agree with most of your post, but I don't necessarily agree that
motorists need to be held to a higher standard. As long as *both*
cyclists and motorists are using the same roads, both need to be equally
vigilant of the other, to prevent untoward incidents from happening.

It's only the consequences to the various parties when things go pear
shaped that are any different... You'd think that that would make
cyclists *more* aware than motorists, but sadly that does not seem to be
the case, at least in my area. I have only seen one cycle-car incident
(actually just a bent up bike in the middle of the road and a lot of cop
cars) but I see a LOT of sloppy riding.

nate

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

Nate Nagel

Peter Cole wrote:
> Luigi de Guzman wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 15:30:07 -0400, Peter Cole wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I'm not "driving". That's the whole point.
>>
>>
>> You're operating a vehicle on the public rights-of-way. You might be
>> lighter, more efficient, and more ecologically sound, but you're still
>> "driving," as far as the statute applies to you.
>
>
> No you're not, you're riding a bike.

Which is a vehicle being operated on a public right-of-way. The two
statements are not contradictory.

nate

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

Nate Nagel

Arif Khokar wrote:
> dgk wrote:
>
>> Bikes actually wait in lines of cars? How odd. I don't think that I've
>> ever seen anyone do that.
>
>
> I do.
>
>> 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.
>
>
> And the driver may not see you if he decides to change lanes for
> whatever reason. Riding like one drives is much safer.
>
>> 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'm on a mountain bike, I'm overweight, yet I'm still capable of keeping
> up with traffic when it starts moving after the light changes (at least
> up to 20 mph. If cars want to go fast, then they can change lanes, or
> pass you after you clear the intersection.
>
>> I also go through red lights
>
>
> The law doesn't make exemptions for cyclists regarding traffic lights.
> IMO, if you don't typically run red lights while driving, you certainly
> shouldn't do it while riding.

And if you *do* typically run red lights while driving, you might want
to reconsider your driving style :P

nate

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

Brent P

In article <YvydnQB5ZbTAfwbbnZ2dnUVZ_vShnZ2d@comcast.com>, Peter Cole wrote:
> Brent P wrote:

>> I don't like gutter passers and other sorts of illegal lane usage so I
>> don't do them.

> It's not illegal here (MA). Are you sure it's illegal where you are?

Lane splitting certainly, gutter passing only when there is considerably
more space than that typically present.

>>> 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.

> That sounds pretty menacing.

Oh they still have more space than they had when they gutter passed me.
If they aren't going to behave as a vehicle, I see no reason to treat
them as one.

> In stop & go traffic, it's pretty hit or
> miss whether or not the cars you pass ever pass you again, sometimes you
> repeatedly pass each other, sometimes not. Even if you do repeatedly
> pass, why should the motorist be entitled to irritation? It makes as
> much sense for me to be irritated about having to filter forward again.

I've passed the same bicyclist upwards of four times in normal city
traffic because they gutter pass to the front of the queue.

>> 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.

> Right, and I see no more reason to be less irritated by a car in my way
> than a bike.

That's why they get a full lane when I pass. But if they decide not to
play nice and gutter pass, well then I'll treat them accordingly.

> In urban scenes I can usually flow through traffic much
> faster than the traffic is moving. I see no reason to park myself behind
> a tailpipe.

Funny. When I am driving or riding I am faster than the gutter passers.
If we take the same route I will always end up repassing them.