Saw an intelligent bicyclist today

On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 22:17:12 -0500, Nate Nagel >
wrote:

>Zoot Katz wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 18:30:06 -0800 (PST), Ed Pirrero
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>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.
>>
>>
>> If some cyclists' behaviour gets your attention it should make you
>> more cautious around other cyclists and that's okay with me.
>>
>> The most likely explanation is that normal drivers (not you clowns in
>> r.a.d) don't notice cyclists obeying the rules to the letter of the
>> law. They're processed as regular traffic and forgotten. It's the
>> same as I quickly forget the attentive attuned motorists playing by
>> the rules.
>
>Nope. I just don't see them because cyclists obeying the letter of the
>law don't exist in my area.
>
Amazingly they manage to survive to **** you off again another day.
Given current trends, their numbers are growing and it's not because
you've learned to compensate for their behaviour. Likely they've
learned to avoid your predictable stupidity.
>>
>> It's the stunned or belligerent scud jockeys who get my attention
>> though few of them are memorable except by their sheer numbers.
>>
>> The typical scud slave exhibiting their typically less than lawful
>> conduct is usually predictable, rarely disappoints me, and quickly
>> forgotten so I'm ready for the inevitable next one.
>>
>> Mostly they're all regarded as potentially dangerous, self-absorbed
>> idiots who may well be asleep, zonked on drugs, talking on phones,
>> putting on make-up, shaving or diverted by their electronic toys.
>
>I'd like to cordially invite you to take your attitude and shove it up
>your ass. It's not like I needed yet *another* reason to think the
>average cyclist was a self-important asshole.
>
Get out your bike, pump up the tires and go for a ride. If that
doesn't rekindle your soul then you've buried it in that coffin you
love.

Get well soon.

--
zk

wrote in news:20535a39-4021-4038-ba94-
:

> On Feb 27, 3:15 pm, N8N > wrote:
>> On Feb 27, 2:56 pm, wrote:
>>
>> > Cyclists should use lights and reflectors at night. Those laws should
>> > be respected.
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>> > But clothing that suits _your_ fancy is not a legal requirement, and
>> > should not be.
>>
>> Being visible is not "my fancy." If you have no lights, no
>> reflectors, and are wearing jeans and a dark shirt, I have no sympathy
>> for anything that might happen to you.
>
> 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.
>
>> > I wish police would enforce _all_ rules of the road, including against
>> > motorists who speed through neighborhoods, roll stop signs, run red
>> > lights, fail to yield to pedestrians, and all the rest. Yes, they
>> > should ticket cyclists - but it's a far lower priority for good
>> > reason.
>>
>> Why? 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.
>
>
>> 100% of cyclists blatantly ignore stop signs.
>
> Wrong.
>
>>
>> > Regarding "serious hazards to themselves and others," feel free to
>> > post documentation of the terrible carnage caused by bicyclists. We
>> > know there are roughly 40,000 people killed by motorists each year in
>> > America. How many are killed by bicyclists? Post the number, please.
>>
>> Mostly cyclists kill themselves.
>
> Mostly cyclists do just fine. Bike commuters live longer than car
> commuters. Cycling confers benefits which far outweigh its tiny
> risks. Cyclists kill essentially nobody. Perhaps one person per year
> in the US is killed by a cyclist. (Data are almost impossible to
> find, because the problem is too small to bother with.)
>
>> But my car will still be damaged.
>
>:-) Well, obviously, that's what the entire universe revolves
> around!
>
> - Frank Krygowski
>

depending on auto drivers to keep you bicyclists safe is about as sensible
as expecting police to protect you from criminals 24/7/365.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

necromancer wrote:
>>It would help if the cyclists would obey the laws and stop running red
>>lights and stop driving on the left side of the road.
>
>Cyclists are riding, you idiot, *not* driving.

What I don't understand is how sfb can judge what intelligence is,
considering that it doesn't possess the attributes necessary to make
such a judgement.


--

People don't confuse me with someone who cares.

Arif Khokar > wrote in
:

> Paul M. Hobson wrote:
>
>> 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?
>
> The root of the problem is that most stop signs are unnecessary. If one
> has a clear view of the intersecting road, then one should only have to
> yield to oncoming traffic before crossing.
>
> As for speeding, almost all highway speed limits are under posted.
>

I ALWAYS stop for stop signs.No matter what time of day/night,or traffic
conditions. The same goes for red lights.

I often exceed the posted speed limits,where it's reasonably safe.


IMO,there are far more "amateur" bicyclists out on the roads than the
"skilled,law-abiding semi-pros" that you bicyclists seem to believe inhabit
the roads.

And both types of bicyclists *always lose* in a car-bike collision,no
matter who's at fault.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Jim Yanik wrote:

> I ALWAYS stop for stop signs.

Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't (both in a car and on a bike). I'm
capable of making sound judgments about which stop signs are necessary
and which aren't. The ones that are necessary are at intersections
where I would stop even if there wasn't a stop sign simply because I
can't see cross traffic before I get there. The one's that aren't are
at intersections that one can see for hundreds of feet in either
direction and don't have much cross traffic.

> I often exceed the posted speed limits,where it's reasonably safe.

So what makes stop signs so special? There are quite a few unnecessary
stop signs and quite a few under posted roadways. In many other
countries, stop signs are rarely used as a traffic control device. The
rule for roads that don't have the right-of-way is to *yield* to other
traffic prior to proceeding. It doesn't mean that one needs to come to
a full stop when no traffic is approaching.

Nate Nagel wrote:
> Larry Farrell wrote:
>> N8N wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 27, 3:40 pm, Larry Farrell > wrote:
>>>
>>>> N8N wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 27, 3:25 pm, Larry Farrell > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> N8N wrote:
>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why? 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, and I still have to deal
>>>>>>> with a
>>>>>>> lot of BS. Since my observations are that 100% of cyclists
>>>>>>> flagrantly
>>>>>>> violate the rules of the road, that seems like a real problem to me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 100% of cyclists blatantly ignore stop signs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Both of your 100%s are 100% BS.
>>>>>
>>>>> Feel free to ride with me someday and prove me wrong. You won't.
>>>>> You'll be shocked at what you see. I stand by my statement. 100% of
>>>>> cyclists that I encounter flagrantly violate the rules of the road.
>>>>> Most common infraction is blowing through stop signs at speed. It
>>>>> sounds incredible, but it is true - ALL cyclists that I encounter ride
>>>>> like they want to be hit. There's a fair number of cyclists around
>>>>> where I live, too - my commute to/from work takes me across a bike
>>>>> trail, so there's a lot of cyclists that I assume are getting on/off
>>>>> the bike trail and riding on the same roads on which I'm driving.
>>>>> nate
>>>>
>>>> Your original statements were that 100% of bicyclists were doing
>>>> illegal things, not that 100% of the bicyclists you observed were
>>>> doing so. Therefore, your original statements were blatantly wrong.
>>>> I stand by *my* statement.
>>>
>>>
>>> So the ones I don't see are perfectly law-abiding? Somehow I doubt
>>> that.
>>>
>>> nate
>>
>>
>> No one said that. But you *did* say that 100% of bicyclists do
>> illegal things, and that is clearly false.
>>
>
> I said "my observations are 100%." That is a 100% true statement.
>
> nate
>

This has dragged on long enough so I will concede that I overstated the
situation a *bit.* Your initial statements are reproduced above exactly
as they appeared in your original message. Granted, you did state
initially that, "Since my observations are that 100% of cyclists
flagrantly violate the rules of the road," and my calling that 100% BS
was out of line (although I really doubt that *every* bicyclist you have
ever seen has done as you suggest). However, you followed that later
with the statement that, "100% of cyclists blatantly ignore stop signs."
Clearly, you are not in a position to judge what 100% of bicyclists
do, even in your local area, and you did not limit that comment to apply
only to your observations.

One for you, one for me.

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

On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 19:36:56 -0800 (PST), Ed Pirrero
> wrote:

>On Feb 27, 7:14*pm, Zoot Katz > wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 18:30:06 -0800 (PST), Ed Pirrero
>>
>> > wrote:
>> >> > 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.
>>
>> If some cyclists' behaviour gets your attention it should make you
>> more cautious around other cyclists and that's okay with me.
>
>As a former vehicular cyclist, I am always careful. And not just
>around bicyclists.
>
>> The most likely explanation is that normal drivers (not you clowns in
>> r.a.d) don't notice cyclists obeying the rules to the letter of the
>> law.
>
>What about we clown who used to ride bikes, and now pay very close
>attention to all traffic, just out of habit?

I didn't really learn to drive until after taking a motorcycle safety
course. I'd already had a license for ten years, owned two cars,
three motorcycles and three road bikes. An evasive driving course
later in life was rehashing most of what I already knew and threw in
a few twists suited to 4 wheels and more mass. Rarely am I required
to drive these days but the survival habits are ingrained. As a
passenger I'm usually uncomfortable as the driver's skill and
attention level is comparably lower than mine.

Face it; any idiot can drive. . . and they usually do.*
>
>> They're processed as regular traffic and forgotten. It's the
>> same as I quickly forget the attentive attuned motorists playing by
>> the rules.
>
>Except that seeing bicycles riding correctly on the roads is a rare,
>noteworthy event.

You're kidding. As a cyclist riding daily throughout the city the
rarest observation is riders riding counterflow. Completely unlit
cyclists averages less than 10%. Most of them have tail lights.
Rolling stop signs is commonly observed by both cars and bicyclists.
Whether or not they have the prescribed bell, most bikes are not in
compliance with that law. Helmet use, mandatory here, is about 60%.
I probably only stop and dab for fewer than ten percent of the stop
signs along my usual routes. I and most cyclists I know approach
intersections with restricted vision prepared to stop not trusting
the stop sign to stop the cross-traffic. I've done my usual
momentary semi-stop in front of cops without hassle. They don't
hassle drivers for that move either. If the traffic is backed up,
I'll filter forward and cross with a car at a four way stop or red
light and I guess that's what really ****es off the caged stooges.
They're envious.
>
>> It's the stunned or belligerent scud jockeys who get my attention
>> though few of them are memorable except by their sheer numbers.
>
>Which is it - there are so many you can't keep track, or they are
>rare? You are being contradictory.
>
I mean that individually they're entirely forgettable because there
are too many idiots pulling the same stunned stunts or selfishly
applying the laws of gross tonnage instead of normal ROW rules.
You can't keep track of them all and they're best forgotten though
always anticipated.

>> The typical scud slave exhibiting their typically less than lawful
>> conduct is usually predictable, rarely disappoints me, and quickly
>> forgotten so I'm ready for the inevitable next one. *
>
>And the lawful one, in their rarity, is not noticed at all.
>
>Uh -huh - you're making a whole lot of sense now. (not)

The attentive attuned driver causes no conflict, is quickly processed
and forgotten. The next driver is still an unknown quantity but
initially regarded as a potential threat.
>
>> Mostly they're all regarded as potentially dangerous, self-absorbed
>> idiots who may well be asleep, zonked on drugs, talking on phones,
>> putting on make-up, shaving or diverted by their electronic toys.
>
>Just like fools on bikes who can't be bothered to make themselves even
>partially visible at night, or who ignore traffic control devices.
>Got it.

Traffic control devices? You're making me gag now.

If the cops could write 100 citations per hour they'd write 350
between 3pm and six thirty, five days per week for drivers making
prohibited turns at just one intersection I cross daily.

What part of "except bicycles" appended to signs restricting
automobile entry you clowns not understand? Surely driving over the
diverter curbs and swerving around the signs must have gotten your
attention.

Quit touching yourself.
>
>E.P.

* meaning they're too stupid or lazy to figure out how to get around
without their motorised carapace. The genuinely handicapped are a
minority compared to those who have handicapped themselves by their
devoted dependance on their plastic lined cages.
--
zk

On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 19:32:21 -0800 (PST), Ed Pirrero
> wrote:

>On Feb 27, 7:21*pm, Zoot Katz > wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 18:32:04 -0800 (PST), Ed Pirrero
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > wrote:
>> >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.
>>
>> Drivers are petulant brats.
>
>Nice cause and effect you have going there.
>
>Logic, much?
>
Speed humps aren't well tolerated by petulant brats so they speed up
to express their disproportionate annoyance over a trifling matter.
Thus: the average speed on the road goes up.
--
zk

In article >,
writes:

>> Being visible is not "my fancy." If you have no lights, no
>> reflectors, and are wearing jeans and a dark shirt, I have no sympathy
>> for anything that might happen to you.
>
> 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.

I believe you (Frank) and I concur.

As I see it, there is no substitute for active lighting,
not even reflectors. A rider with active lighting is,
well, /lit-up/. No sweat. Reflectors should be adjuncts
and supplementary to active lighting. But when you have
good active lighting, you're already pretty much covered.

Non-reflective clothing is no substitute for passive
lighting (reflectors) no matter what the colour.
In the dark, all cats are grey. I sure wouldn't rely
on a pair of white Dockers and a white London Fog
golf jacket for my safety on an unlit country highway
on a moonless, overcast-sky night (and I hope to never
even be caught dead in such an outfit. I'll wear a
powder blue leisure suit first. Well, may not.)

Even in the city there can be pockets of darkness
where light but non-reflective clothing can't cut
the mustard.

Reflective clothing /is/ reflectors, not a substitute
for bike-mounted reflectors.

But it's certainly not a substitute for active lighting.
I guess it's slightly better than nothing, in that if
circumstances are with one during an incipient collision,
one /might/ be seen & avoided.

As for obscurity: when I'm riding along past a line
of parked cars and I see one with tinted windows,
I'll swing a little further away from the door zone
as I pass by it. I can't tell if there's a driver
in there about to open his door and step into my line,
or even pull-out in front of me (although I can tell
by the running lights coming on, but car lights don't
always work.) I'm very leery of parked cars with
tinted windows. Drivers with tinted windows force
cyclists to have to take even more of the lane.

Right now I'd like to give all drivers w/ the selfish
affectation of having tinted windows an hearty
Bronx cheer and an heartfelt "thanx a lot".
So here yez go :-p :-p :-p

Tinted side/rear windows should be prohibited.
Outright banned like illegal drugs or kidnapping.
Tinted windows are a bain on all that's good.



cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

In article >,
(Tom Keats) writes:

> Tinted windows are a bain on all that's good.
^^^^

I meant: "bane".

Please don't bug me.

Okay, go ahead, if ya wanna.

At least I didn't try to do math on Usenet.

Trying to do math on Usenet always goes awry too.
Usually in the simple arithmetic.

I need a copper bain-marie. Just the thing
for making custards. And a good dessert is
good for forgetting about math problems or
homonyms & synonyms.

Anyways, back to tinted windows -- there's something
sinister about folks who like to do stuff while
cloaked in darkness. Except maybe astronomers and
photographic film developers.

What's going on in those tinted-windowed cars
anyway, that the occupants of which fear discovery?
Coitus? Drug deals? Nose-picking?


--
Why can't anything ever go right?
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca