How to **** Off an Arrogant Pedalcyclist

Arif Khokar > wrote in
:

> Cathy Kearns wrote:
>
>> "Scott en Aztlán" > wrote:
>
>>>Riding a bicycle on the sidewalk is against California law. There are
>>>no exceptions for "safety reasons."
>
>> Yet police are not shy about inviting children to ride on the
>> sidewalk on some routes close to schools to keep them out of danger.
>
> Children are not licensed drivers. A licensed driver is supposed to
> know the rules of the road and follow them regardless of what type of
> vehicle he's using. If he's riding a bicycle, he's to ride on the
> road in the same direction as traffic.
>
> Bicycles ridden by adults go too fast to safely mix with pedestrians
> on a sidewalk.

You must have never seen any kids riding their bicycles."go too fast",LMAO.


> Pedestrians, unlike vehicles, don't follow rules of
> the road or stay within "lanes" on a sidewalk. This is why you can't
> have someone moving 20 mph amongst those walking 3 mph.


But it's somehow OK to have a slow bicycle among faster moving autos

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Arif Khokar > wrote in
:


>
> Since when do cars have to slow down?

I see that frequently.

> If the cyclist is in the right
> lane, the car can easily pass in the left lane without having to slow
> down.

Only IF there IS a "left lane".

>
> The key difference between cyclists vs. pedestrians and cars vs.
> cyclists is that the latter two are restricted by rules of the road.
> Each of them must remain within lane markings and they are supposed to
> signal when changing lanes or direction.
>
> Pedestrians on a sidewalk do not have to stay within a "lane" on the
> sidewalk, and they are not required to signal before changing
> direction.
>
> That difference is why cars going 20 to 40 mph faster than cyclists is
> safe (assuming separate lanes, of course), but cyclists going 15 mph
> faster than pedestrians is unsafe.
>

But a bicycle going 15 mph slower than the auto traffic is somehow safe?
No.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

In article >, Ferris wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article >, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
>>
>>
>>>21208(a) Failure to ride in a bicycle lane.
>>
>>
>> Interesting, I always described bicycle lanes as bicycle restrictions,
>> but only effectively. Seems they are legally too. Just another reason to
>> oppose them.

> I would interpret this as meaning if you're riding on the road, and
> there is a bicycle lane, you need to be in it.

Exactly. a bicycle restriction. Without a bicycle lane, provided a
bicyclist is doing the speed of traffic, he can be in any lane he wants
to be in. I've used the left lane on a bicycle legally numerous times.
Yes, I was passing motor vehicle traffic to my right and keeping up with
the vehicles in front of me. Striping a bike lane would make that
illegal.

In article >, Jim Yanik wrote:

>> If the cyclist is in the right
>> lane, the car can easily pass in the left lane without having to slow
>> down.
>
> Only IF there IS a "left lane".

Then you should have the cement mixers and other slow motor vehicles use
the sidewalk too.

I just got home from riding. 54 degrees F today... blah. anyway, there
was a cabby blocking my path on to the road as I was leaving a strip
mall. He was parked on the sidewalk.

>> The key difference between cyclists vs. pedestrians and cars vs.
>> cyclists is that the latter two are restricted by rules of the road.
>> Each of them must remain within lane markings and they are supposed to
>> signal when changing lanes or direction.

>> Pedestrians on a sidewalk do not have to stay within a "lane" on the
>> sidewalk, and they are not required to signal before changing
>> direction.

>> That difference is why cars going 20 to 40 mph faster than cyclists is
>> safe (assuming separate lanes, of course), but cyclists going 15 mph
>> faster than pedestrians is unsafe.

> But a bicycle going 15 mph slower than the auto traffic is somehow safe?
> No.

It's perfectly safe. It's not an interstate and a bicyclist is easy to
pass. And riding as much as I do, I can tell you for a fact I am slowed
by drivers when I am on a bicycle far more than I ever slow them in those
circumstances that require me to take the lane and including when it's
due to their own inability to handle their vehicle in traffic.

"Joe Canuck" > wrote in message
...
> Scott en Aztlán wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 14 May 2005 20:47:39 -0400, Joe Canuck
> > > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>>http://www.geocities.com/scottenaztlan/
> >>>
> >>>Your website says it all, you are the asshole, everyone is supposed to
> >>>behave as you think they should.
> >>
> >>Wow, I missed that on my first pass of his post.
> >>
> >>Ok, so we now know why he carries the camera... to collect "evidence" to
> >>support his hate-on website.
> >
> >
> > Let me guess: you're one of those assholes who takes up multiple
> > parking spaces, or regularly blocks traffic by parking in no-parking
> > zones?
>
> That would be difficult, sinc I don't own a car.
>
> > If not, then what, exactly, do you find objectionable about my
> > web site? I only hate what every reasonable person hates: people who
>
> It is a negative site, with little to nothing to offer in a positive way.
>
> > think that the rules don't apply to them and that they should be
> > allowed to do whatever the hell they want - like ride their bicycle on
> > the sidewalk.
>
> Of course, you have verified this with every single person who you claim
> to be an idiot?
>
> I suspect you take every single incident like this very personally and
> figure the person has made a point to be at that particular location of
> the sidewalk at the same time as you... just to **** you off.
>
> Right.
>

LOL - he reminds me of my ex-wife. She too had a low tolerance for "stupid"
this, and "idiot" that, and took every little thing personally, and never
missed an opportunity to whine about it. She seemed to believe that there
was some sort of Galactic Conspiracy of Stupid People to Deny Her Happiness.

It's a pretty toxic mindset, and leaving her and her negative baggage behind
was one of the smartest moves I ever made.

GG

"Zoot Katz" > @4ax.com...
>

Hey Zoot, looks like your reference to Scuds has upset some of
the FAT people over on that lamer autos.driving NG!

Scott en Aztl=E1n wrote:
> My wife saw an unusual type of plant which she
> thought might look good in our back yard, so I took some pictures of
> it for her. Then these two chumps brushed by on their bicycles, so I
> snapped them, too.

Yeah. Right. I believe you. Really. Were all those pictures on your
geocities site taken incidentally as well when you or your wife saw an
unusual parking barricade you thought might make an interesting lawn
ornament?
Trolling about bikes on sidewalks, people driving too fast, people
driving too slow, people that don't park the way you think they
should... it must really suck to be you.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

On Sat, 14 May 2005 16:15:55 -0700, Scott en Aztlán wrote:

> Why do supposedly mature adults think it's OK to ride their bikes on
> the sidewalk? Here's another couple we saw today on our walk:

Because drivers (and police) yell at them to "get the **** off the road".

--

David L. Johnson

__o | Do not worry about your difficulties in mathematics, I can
_`\(,_ | assure you that mine are all greater. -- A. Einstein
(_)/ (_) |

Jim Yanik wrote:

> Arif Khokar > wrote:

>>Pedestrians, unlike vehicles, don't follow rules of
>>the road or stay within "lanes" on a sidewalk. This is why you can't
>>have someone moving 20 mph amongst those walking 3 mph.

> But it's somehow OK to have a slow bicycle among faster moving autos

Cyclists stay within lane markings, pedestrians do not. There's a
reason why it's advised to walk on the left side of the road facing
traffic instead of away from traffic.

Besides, you're free to move over to the next lane, or half-way over the
center line to pass a cyclist. That's what I do whenever I encounter a
cyclist while driving.

Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> On Sun, 15 May 2005 18:36:00 GMT, "Bill Sornson"
> > wrote:
>
>> Scott en Aztlán wrote:
>>
>>> You also forgot to mention how you
>>> are so busy digging **** out of your glovebox that you miss the left
>>> turn arrow, even though I'm leaning on the horn behind you.
>>
>> May your next glovebox-rummager be on steroids and in a foul mood.
>
> It'd take a hell of a lot of steriods for him to survive being run
> over by a car...

Hate-mongers ought not use smilies.

:-D