Saw an intelligent bicyclist today

Brent P wrote:
> In article >, wrote:
>
>>On Feb 27, 3:54 pm, (Brent P)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article >, wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>For example, regarding stop signs: I live across the street from
>>>>one. Fewer than half the drivers bother to stop. The majority roll
>>>>right through. The potential harm from a motorist doing that is
>>>>hundreds of times worse than that from a cyclist.
>>>
>>>Is it one of those stop signs you had put up to slow people down? If so,
>>>that's the reason people don't respect it.
>>
>>Brent, you've apparently edited our previous discussions to meet your
>>preconceptions.
>>
>>First, I've never, not once, been involved in putting in a stop sign
>>to slow people down. Neither has the bike-pedestrian committee I've
>>been a member of.
>>
>>Second, the stop sign is at a T intersection, and visibility isn't
>>particularly good, due to shrubbery. It's a very normal and practical
>>place for a stop sign. No reasonable person would doubt its
>>appropriateness. (True, the local teeny-bopper would disagree, the
>>one with the daddy-bought car with the "aerodynamic" wing and fart-can
>>muffler, but those boys are pretty unreasonable.)
>
>
>
>>>That said we've been over this before and you didn't believe it then and
>>>I doubt you do now.
>>
>>We've been over this before, but you've forgotten most of it.
>
>
> Oh yeah, that's right you achieve the same ends (rapid acceleration and
> braking point to point) with frequent speed humps instead of stop signs.
>

Please, PLEASE let us not resurrect that thread. I remember it well,
and it was definitely a case of an irresistable force of reason meeting
an immovable object of stubbornness and irrationality.

nate

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

On Feb 27, 8:22 pm, David Poole > wrote:
> N8N wrote:
> >On Feb 27, 10:58 am, wrote:
> >> On Feb 27, 1:26 am, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > He was wearing one of those bright orange hunting vests and you couldn't
> >> > miss seeing him. Why don't they all do that or at least paint their helmet
> >> > hunter orange?
>
> >> If you have trouble seeing ordinary (non-orange) cyclists or
> >> pedestrians in plenty of time, you're not driving responsibly. Try
> >> slowing down and paying more attention.
>
> >> - Frank Krygowski
>
> >Yes, all of the cyclists in my area are responsible and never, ever do
> >stuff like riding after dark without lights and wearing dark and/or
> >non-reflective clothing. (snort)
>
> >If it didn't seem like the vast majority of cyclists that I see had
> >death wishes (in addition to the above, I actually saw a cyclist at
> >least slow down - not stop, just slow - for a stop sign the other
> >day. It was noteworthy because that was the first time I'd seen that
> >happen in months,) you might have a point, but my general impression
> >of them is that they are serious hazards to themselves and others, and
> >I wish that police would take more notice of this and start enforcing
> >the rules of the road. It is only a matter of time before one of
> >these idiots ends up getting flattened by a car, and I'm sad to say
> >that my sympathy will be with the driver of the car.
>
> I don't know that I would restrict that statement to cyclist; it seems
> a fair number of motorists in my stretch of the woods have death
> wishes as well. That's one of the reasons I don't give a crap that 110
> idiots check out on a daily basis. In fact, it's my personal belief
> that society as a whole would improve if that number grew to 1100.

As awful as the skills/behavior/courtesy/awareness of the average
driver around here are, the cyclists are significantly worse. I can't
honestly say that all motorists blow stop signs or half of them drive
around after dark with their lights off, for example.

But you're right, there's a whole lotta stupid on both sides. Just
more so with cyclists, it seems. Not sure why; I don't actually know
any serious cyclists in this area personally, so I haven't had the
opportunity to try to figure it out - and to be perfectly honest,
their behavior is kind of a disincentive to take up cycling seriously
again, although this area is actually more bike-friendly than any I've
lived in the last decade or so.

nate

On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 20:23:24 -0500, Nate Nagel >
wrote:

>
>Please, PLEASE let us not resurrect that thread. I remember it well,
>and it was definitely a case of an irresistable force of reason meeting
>an immovable object of stubbornness and irrationality.
>
>nate

So you still don't understand how those things work.
Perhaps if they were renamed "slow humps" you might get it.
--
zk

On Feb 27, 7:46 pm, Nate Nagel > wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > Slow down and think about it again, Nate. The jeans and dark shirt
> > should not be part of the equation. If it's night, a driver has a
> > right to expect cyclists to have lights, and possibly reflectors.
> > (That depends a bit on the jurisdiction.) But night or day, a
> > motorist has no right to complain about jeans and a dark shirt. They
> > are legal. It's up to you to watch for others on the road; how
> > they're dressed should not matter.
>
> It does if they have neither lights nor reflectors.

Wow. You're having a hard time with these concepts!

It's the lights you may complain about. The clothing is nowhere near
as significant as the lights. That's why the laws universally require
lights, and never require clothing.

There must be _somebody_ who can explain that to you!

> >> If I hit another car because the driver did something illegal,
> >>or hit a cyclist because he did something illegal, I still hit
> >>something. I'm still inconvenienced...
>
> > Sorry about that. But the world's been made too convenient for
> > motorists, to the detriment of everyone else. Besides, I doubt you
> > can cite five examples in the last five years where a motorist damaged
> > his precious car due to avoiding a cyclist's illegal move.
>
> Hell, I've probably *SEEN* five bent up bikes laying in the middle of
> the road, with cops, ambulances, etc. in that time period.

Well, yet again, your world seems to be extremely different from mine,
and from all the people I know. I suspect that's because yours
includes a large measure of fantasy.

But feel free to prove me wrong! Just dig out citations we can
check. Links to newspaper articles, or accident statistics will do
fine.

> >>100% of cyclists blatantly ignore stop signs.
>
> > Wrong.
>
> Come ride with me someday. You'll see I'm right.

Sorry, but according to the rules of logic, it takes only one
counterexample to prove you wrong. The cyclists you claim to observe
do not make up the total population of cyclists. Again, if that's not
clear, find someone who can explain it to you.

> >>But my car will still be damaged.
>
> > :-) Well, obviously, that's what the entire universe revolves
> > around!
>
> It does to me.

What a small, simple world you inhabit!

- Frank Krygowski

>> On Feb 27, 3:15 pm, N8N > wrote:
>>> 100% of cyclists blatantly ignore stop signs.
>>
> wrote:
>> Wrong.

Nate Nagel wrote:
> Come ride with me someday. You'll see I'm right.

So Nate, you're saying that you run stop signs when you're on your bike
too? Seems a little odd considering it irks you so much.

How about this: While driving, do you ever speed (even 1 mph counts)?
Do you ever roll through stop signs?

..
..
..

I thought so.

--
Paul M. Hobson
..:change the f to ph to reply:.

wrote:
> On Feb 27, 7:46 pm, Nate Nagel > wrote:
>
wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Slow down and think about it again, Nate. The jeans and dark shirt
>>>should not be part of the equation. If it's night, a driver has a
>>>right to expect cyclists to have lights, and possibly reflectors.
>>>(That depends a bit on the jurisdiction.) But night or day, a
>>>motorist has no right to complain about jeans and a dark shirt. They
>>>are legal. It's up to you to watch for others on the road; how
>>>they're dressed should not matter.
>>
>>It does if they have neither lights nor reflectors.
>
>
> Wow. You're having a hard time with these concepts!
>
> It's the lights you may complain about. The clothing is nowhere near
> as significant as the lights. That's why the laws universally require
> lights, and never require clothing.
>
> There must be _somebody_ who can explain that to you!

Ok then. Why do cyclists consistently not use lights, AND don't even
make a half-assed gesture towards safety by wearing clothing that might
be visible?

Is that better?

>
>>>>If I hit another car because the driver did something illegal,
>>>>or hit a cyclist because he did something illegal, I still hit
>>>>something. I'm still inconvenienced...
>>
>>>Sorry about that. But the world's been made too convenient for
>>>motorists, to the detriment of everyone else. Besides, I doubt you
>>>can cite five examples in the last five years where a motorist damaged
>>>his precious car due to avoiding a cyclist's illegal move.
>>
>>Hell, I've probably *SEEN* five bent up bikes laying in the middle of
>>the road, with cops, ambulances, etc. in that time period.
>
>
> Well, yet again, your world seems to be extremely different from mine,
> and from all the people I know.

Well, maybe you live somewhere where cyclists are reasonable. I don't.

> I suspect that's because yours
> includes a large measure of fantasy.

I suspect you're an asshole that likes to throw out unsupported assertions.

> But feel free to prove me wrong! Just dig out citations we can
> check. Links to newspaper articles, or accident statistics will do
> fine.


You know, after the last crash of which I saw the aftermath, I actually
attempted to find a news article the next day and it went completely
unreported. (I was honestly curious as to the well being of the
cyclist, because the bike looked pretty well beat up. Due to the
presence of large numbers of police officers and an ambulance and fire
truck, I'm guessing that it didn't fall off of someone's bike rack.)
Similarly with a pedestrian accident that I saw only a few blocks from
my house. Apparently they aren't news-worthy.

>
>>>>100% of cyclists blatantly ignore stop signs.
>>
>>>Wrong.
>>
>>Come ride with me someday. You'll see I'm right.
>
>
> Sorry, but according to the rules of logic, it takes only one
> counterexample to prove you wrong. The cyclists you claim to observe
> do not make up the total population of cyclists. Again, if that's not
> clear, find someone who can explain it to you.

I do believe that my initial statement said something like "my
observations are 100%." As in, since I have moved to this area I have
yet to see one single cyclist stop for a stop sign. It's been over a
year, if there is even a significant minority of cyclists that actually
obey traffic laws you'd think I'd have seen one by now.

>
>
>>>>But my car will still be damaged.
>>
>>>:-) Well, obviously, that's what the entire universe revolves
>>>around!
>>
>>It does to me.
>
>
> What a small, simple world you inhabit!
>

Well, why don't I just bash the door of your car with a hammer then.
You shouldn't mind, since it's not your bike or your person, right?

Most people will value the integrity of their own posessions over the
well being of a negligent stranger. They just don't care to say it in
public. I'm not particularly ashamed of my view; my greatest concern is
simply avoiding collecting one of these idiots.

nate


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

Zoot Katz wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 20:23:24 -0500, Nate Nagel >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Please, PLEASE let us not resurrect that thread. I remember it well,
>>and it was definitely a case of an irresistable force of reason meeting
>>an immovable object of stubbornness and irrationality.
>>
>>nate
>
>
> So you still don't understand how those things work.
> Perhaps if they were renamed "slow humps" you might get it.

I understand perfectly well how they work, they don't.

And that will be my last word on the subject, as I believe didn't I say
"please let us not resurrect this thread?"

nate

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

On Feb 27, 6:05*pm, wrote:
> On Feb 27, 7:46 pm, Nate Nagel > wrote:
>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Slow down and think about it again, Nate. *The jeans and dark shirt
> > > should not be part of the equation. *If it's night, a driver has a
> > > right to expect cyclists to have lights, and possibly reflectors.
> > > (That depends a bit on the jurisdiction.) *But night or day, a
> > > motorist has no right to complain about jeans and a dark shirt. *They
> > > are legal. *It's up to you to watch for others on the road; how
> > > they're dressed should not matter.
>
> > It does if they have neither lights nor reflectors.
>
> Wow. *You're having a hard time with these concepts!

No, Frank, he really doesn't. You're being a jerk, and pedantic to
boot.

If being seen in low-light conditions isn't important, why does
Colorado Cyclist sell Day-Glo orange reflectorized vests?

Why do cycling shoes have reflectorized materials in them? Why do
people attact reflector tape to their helmets or caps?

What you wear can make a difference. Suggesting it doesn't matter is
non-sensical.

> > Hell, I've probably *SEEN* five bent up bikes laying in the middle of
> > the road, with cops, ambulances, etc. in that time period.
>
> Well, yet again, your world seems to be extremely different from mine,
> and from all the people I know.

So that implies that your view is correct, and his is wrong? Nice
logic use, Frank.

> *I suspect that's because yours
> includes a large measure of fantasy.

Easy to be an e-thug hiding behind your keyboard, eh, Frank?


> > Come ride with me someday. *You'll see I'm right.
>
> Sorry, but according to the rules of logic, it takes only one
> counterexample to prove you wrong.

Yes. Now prove that he has ever seen one bicyclist stop. Go ahead,
it's *your* proposal, after all.

From some of the biking behavior I've seen, it's not outside the realm
of possiblity that he has never actually seen a bicyclist stop at a
light or a sign. Unlikely, but not impossible.

> *The cyclists you claim to observe
> do not make up the total population of cyclists.

He's not claiming he's seen that. Straw man, Frank.

E.P.

On Feb 27, 6:04*pm, Zoot Katz > wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 20:23:24 -0500, Nate Nagel >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Please, PLEASE let us not resurrect that thread. *I remember it well,
> >and it was definitely a case of an irresistable force of reason meeting
> >an immovable object of stubbornness and irrationality.
>
> >nate
>
> So you still don't understand how those things work.
> Perhaps if they were renamed "slow humps" you might get it.


If you're claiming that they do anything more than slow people down
right at their location, then you are mistaken. Average speeds on
roads with speed humps INCREASES when they are installed.

Explain that, if you please.

E.P.

On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 21:18:51 -0500, Nate Nagel >
wrote:

>Zoot Katz wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 20:23:24 -0500, Nate Nagel >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Please, PLEASE let us not resurrect that thread. I remember it well,
>>>and it was definitely a case of an irresistable force of reason meeting
>>>an immovable object of stubbornness and irrationality.
>>>
>>>nate
>>
>>
>> So you still don't understand how those things work.
>> Perhaps if they were renamed "slow humps" you might get it.
>
>I understand perfectly well how they work, they don't.
>
>And that will be my last word on the subject, as I believe didn't I say
>"please let us not resurrect this thread?"
>
>nate

Still touchy about all those busted plastic air-dams you've left
littering the road, I guess.

Maybe next time you can wipe out the exhaust so you can replace it
with something that doesn't sound like a leaf blower in a footlocker.

Gosh, that's such a sexy car you're married to.
--
zk