Mega-MFFY

"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message

> Tell me, when a cop pulls you over..... is it "all about him?"

Of course not. But you're not a cop. Invalid analogy.

> If a drunk driver almost collided.... and you called the police to report
> him, does this mean "it's all about you?"

Well, me and several thousand others, perhaps. Better, but still not a good
analogy. A drunk is out of control and must be removed. This is not the
same as someone whom you perceive as inept or aggressive simply because he
doesn't possess your professional driving skills, lightning-like reflexes,
and infallible depth perception and speed/distance judgement.

"Brent P" > wrote in message
>
>Why do you have a problem
> with driving such that you don't negatively impact others?

I don't have any such problem. Where did I say that?

>Why do you
> have a problem with those complaining about being negatively impacted?

Because its a lot like kids complaining about sand in their bathing suits
while playing at the beach. If you're going to drive on public roadways,
you have to tolerate the public, and that means some folk who simply haven't
achieved your level of perfection in operating a vehicle. Occasional
complaints are normal - everyone does that. But you obsess over these
things in a way that is truly unhealthy.

>
> My interest began when I moved to an area that didn't have the gridded
> roads and through streets in subdivisions and other residential areas
> that I was used to for all of my life prior to that point.

OK, fine. No excuse, just deal with it. I, and several million other folk,
have lived entire lives driving in a northeastern city where gridded streets
are virtually nonexistent.

>
> This is when drivers with a MFFY style went from a minor annoyance when
> I (up to then rarely) drove to a life threatening condition when I biked.
> I
> don't know about you, but the bicycle is my favorite vehicle, most of my
> driving technique is from my bicycling.

Key phrase he "...most of my driving technique is from my bicycling.."
That is truly frightening, but enlightening. Based on my observation of
bicyclists, I now conclude that your auto driving technique incorporates
abrupt, unannounced lane changes, squeezing by other traffic in the same
lane if you think there's room, and disregard of traffic lights if *you*
think there's time to sneak across. I now understand both 1) how you
encounter so many dangerous situations, and 2) why you sincerely believe
that all the fault lies with the *other* drivers.

>
> .....nearly sucked under the wheels of a box truck....ended up crashing
> into
> the ditch; kid who crossed the center line....nearly killing me; kid
> who cut me off...and then slammed on the brakes; rear ended while waiting
> at traffic lights.

You certainly do encounter a lot of situations. The only common factor in
all these things is you. Do the analysis.

John Gaquin wrote:

> Key phrase he "...most of my driving technique is from my bicycling.."
> That is truly frightening, but enlightening. Based on my observation of
> bicyclists, I now conclude that your auto driving technique incorporates
> abrupt, unannounced lane changes, squeezing by other traffic in the same
> lane if you think there's room, and disregard of traffic lights if *you*
> think there's time to sneak across.

You have a bad habit of making unwarranted assumptions. Try checking
the google archives before you make an ass out of yourself again.

"Arif Khokar" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> John Gaquin wrote:
>
>> Key phrase he "...most of my driving technique is from my
>> bicycling.."
>> That is truly frightening, but enlightening. Based on my observation of
>> bicyclists, I now conclude that your auto driving technique incorporates
>> abrupt, unannounced lane changes, squeezing by other traffic in the same
>> lane if you think there's room, and disregard of traffic lights if *you*
>> think there's time to sneak across.
>
> You have a bad habit of making unwarranted assumptions. Try checking
> the google archives before you make an ass out of yourself again.
>

"Again"? I made no assumptions of any kind; I reached conclusions. Google
archives are large - if you have something to point out, please be more
specific.

John Gaquin wrote:
> "Arif Khokar" > wrote in message
> oups.com...

> >> Key phrase he "...most of my driving technique is from my
> >> bicycling.."
> >> That is truly frightening, but enlightening. Based on my observation of
> >> bicyclists, I now conclude that your auto driving technique incorporates
> >> abrupt, unannounced lane changes, squeezing by other traffic in the same
> >> lane if you think there's room, and disregard of traffic lights if *you*
> >> think there's time to sneak across.

> > You have a bad habit of making unwarranted assumptions. Try checking
> > the google archives before you make an ass out of yourself again.

> "Again"? I made no assumptions of any kind; I reached conclusions.

You made an assumption. In order to reach a conclusion, you need data
that supports it. You made no effort to gather any data (hence the
reason I kindly pointed you to the Google archive).

> Google archives are large

Why, yes, they are. That's why you use search terms when looking for
something specific.

In article >, John Gaquin wrote:
>
> "Brent P" > wrote in message
>>
>>Why do you have a problem
>> with driving such that you don't negatively impact others?

> I don't have any such problem. Where did I say that?

It would appear you do, since you apparently don't think that is
something to strive for.

>>Why do you
>> have a problem with those complaining about being negatively impacted?

> Because its a lot like kids complaining about sand in their bathing suits
> while playing at the beach. If you're going to drive on public roadways,
> you have to tolerate the public, and that means some folk who simply haven't
> achieved your level of perfection in operating a vehicle. Occasional
> complaints are normal - everyone does that. But you obsess over these
> things in a way that is truly unhealthy.

The arguement of the lowest common demonator. Of no improvement, just
accept stupidity and build better idiots year after year. Build the sense
of entitlement by never so much as honking a horn or communicating in any
fashion that the behavior is wrong.

>> My interest began when I moved to an area that didn't have the gridded
>> roads and through streets in subdivisions and other residential areas
>> that I was used to for all of my life prior to that point.

> OK, fine. No excuse, just deal with it. I, and several million other folk,
> have lived entire lives driving in a northeastern city where gridded streets
> are virtually nonexistent.

I do deal with it. But what you apparently want is silent acceptance of
it.

>> This is when drivers with a MFFY style went from a minor annoyance when
>> I (up to then rarely) drove to a life threatening condition when I biked.
>> I
>> don't know about you, but the bicycle is my favorite vehicle, most of my
>> driving technique is from my bicycling.

> Key phrase he "...most of my driving technique is from my bicycling.."
> That is truly frightening, but enlightening.

Of course let me guess, you are going to harp on POBs....

> Based on my observation of
> bicyclists, I now conclude that your auto driving technique incorporates
> abrupt, unannounced lane changes, squeezing by other traffic in the same
> lane if you think there's room, and disregard of traffic lights if *you*
> think there's time to sneak across.

Um no. I am a vehicular bicyclist. That means to the letter of the
vehicle code. I've posted on this many many many times over the years.
However drivers seem to have a great deal of problem with it. A good
number don't like waiting their turn behind me at traffic lights and try
to force their way past to snuggle up to the bumper of the car in front
of me. I find 2-3 a year like that alone.

> I now understand both 1) how you
> encounter so many dangerous situations, and 2) why you sincerely believe
> that all the fault lies with the *other* drivers.

You're so full of ****. My guess is that you are just another driver who
expects everyone else to compensate for him.

>> .....nearly sucked under the wheels of a box truck....ended up crashing
>> into
>> the ditch; kid who crossed the center line....nearly killing me; kid
>> who cut me off...and then slammed on the brakes; rear ended while waiting
>> at traffic lights.

> You certainly do encounter a lot of situations. The only common factor in
> all these things is you. Do the analysis.

I see a lot of traffic.

You can only hope someone cross the center line and give you the choice
between being sideswiped and going into the ditch and hitting a big
tree. Or that someone just doesn't plow into the back of your car while
you are waiting at a traffic light.

Arif Khokar wrote: <brevity snip>
> John Gaquin wrote:
>
> > > You have a bad habit of making unwarranted assumptions. Try checking
> > > the google archives before you make an ass out of yourself again.
>
> > "Again"? I made no assumptions of any kind; I reached conclusions.
>
> You made an assumption. In order to reach a conclusion, you need data
> that supports it. You made no effort to gather any data (hence the
> reason I kindly pointed you to the Google archive).
>
> > Google archives are large
>
> Why, yes, they are. That's why you use search terms when looking for
> something specific.
-----
Looks like your either stupid, have reading comprehension problems or
are plumb out of argument, or all three.

He reached his conclusions based on Brent's post, and he quotes Brent
in the process. That's his "data", dumbass. Your definition of that
procedure as "making unwarranted assumptions" and suggestion that the
needed data should be available via Google if it exists couldn't *be*
more stupid.

When you're out of argument it's best to just STFU.
-----

- gpsman

gpsman wrote:

> He reached his conclusions based on Brent's post,

He didn't. His "conclusion" was based on assumptions, and therefore is
an assumption in itself.

> That's his "data", dumbass.

That's not data by any stretch of the definition.

> Your definition of that
> procedure as "making unwarranted assumptions"

Unwarranted assumptions because he did not back them up with data
gleaned from Brent's archived posts on the subject under discussion.

> and suggestion that the
> needed data should be available via Google if it exists

It does exist. I've read many posts of his in the archives over the
years.

> couldn't *be* more stupid.

I don't see why stating the fact that posts of Brent's on the subject
under discussion are available in the Google archive is "stupid," in
your words.

> When you're out of argument it's best to just STFU.

Throwing a temper tantrum isn't going to help your argument, no matter
how many times you *assume* otherwise.

In article . com>, gpsman wrote:
> Arif Khokar wrote: <brevity snip>

>> Why, yes, they are. That's why you use search terms when looking for
>> something specific.

> He reached his conclusions based on Brent's post, and he quotes Brent
> in the process. That's his "data", dumbass. Your definition of that
> procedure as "making unwarranted assumptions" and suggestion that the
> needed data should be available via Google if it exists couldn't *be*
> more stupid.

His data was the POBs (people on bicycle) he remembers seeing in his
neighborhood who ride bicycles as if they were a mere toy and not
subject to the vehicle code and then he assumed I ride like them. This
is an incorrect view as I follow a practice known as vehicular bicycling.
His data set was not applicable and his assumption failed.

This best describes the way I ride:

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/docs/pamanual.pdf

Start with chapter 2.

If you prefer films, the 1954 film, "Drive your Bike" found he
http://www.humantransport.org/bicycl...es/movies.html
and at archive.org explains the concepts involved. It's aimed at children
so it should be just about your speed.

It's sad this stuff isn't taught in grade school any longer. They just
feed kids a bunch of helmet propaganda which leads to the POB behavior
that many people see and what they remember.

Brent P wrote:
>
> This best describes the way I ride:
>
> http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/docs/pamanual.pdf
>
> Start with chapter 2.
> -----
<quote> With very few exceptions, the safest way to ride is as part of
the traffic, going with the flow of the normal traffic pattern.
</quote>

That isn't what you describe with your tales of Sloths holding you up
on your bicycle.

Slower drivers are part of the "normal traffic pattern". If you rode
"going with the flow of the normal traffic pattern" you'd have little,
if any problem with slower drivers (especially on a *bike*). So I don't
think that "best describes the way" you ride.

Except everyone is speeding everywhere at all times, of course. Where
in the **** are all these slow drivers coming from?

You seem just a tad bit difficult to satisfy... or comprehend.
-----

-
gpsman