Saw an intelligent bicyclist today

On Feb 27, 9:38*pm, Zoot Katz > wrote:
> 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.

Other than your logical fallacy (straw man), and your invalid
conclusion arising from your false premise, you are correct.

I'll leave to to figure out which part of your argument applies.

For adults, the real result is that speed humps are ineffective at
their primary duty - slowing down traffic. Thus, they are not
indicated in any situation.

E.P.

On Feb 27, 9:26*pm, Zoot Katz > wrote:
> 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. *

Which has nothing to do with the refutation of your illogical premise.

>
>
> >> 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.

I am not. I see *very few* law-abiding vehicle operators of any type.

That includes bicyclists.


> >> 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.

You're still not making sense. Even the fully law-abiding driver can
make a mistake.

ALL cars must be watched. Your lack of logic has made you blind.


> >> 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.

Yeah - like stop lights, stop signs, properly riding with traffic,
etc. Visible at night barely even makes the top ten of bicyclists
willfully ignoring traffic law, or more importantly, the laws of
common sense.

> 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.

The vast number of drivers disobeying the law does not give cyclists
the right to break the law. If you spent any time in r.a.d. AT ALL
you'd see we don't like those folks, either.

The above is yet another logical fallacy - the two wrongs fallacy.


> What part of "except bicycles" appended to signs restricting
> automobile entry you clowns not understand?

We don't have those here. And I certainly won't answer for those who
ignore them.

> Surely driving over the
> diverter curbs and swerving around the signs must have gotten your
> attention.

Logical fallacy - guilt by association.

You aren't really high on the reason scale, are you?

E.P.

On Feb 28, 5:37*am, Stephen Harding > wrote:
> Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I don't think he's saying it doesn't matter. *He's saying
> it isn't required for adequate night time detection of a
> bicyclist.

He's saying it should not matter - the quote is above. But it does
matter - the more visible you are at night, the better. Even for
those of us who actually pay attention, more visible is better.

> It certainly can't hurt for a bicyclist to wear bright glowing
> clothing while pedaling his bike at night.

This is true.

> *It certainly can't
> hurt for a motorist to wear a helmet while he drives.

I do wear a helmet when I drive.

> But such things aren't additional *requirements* simply because
> what *is* required is deemed sufficient for the purpose.

Being a pedantic asshole does not make one more safe in low-light
conditions. Like those idiots who can't find their headlamp switches
when it's raining. Sure, it's optional, but that doesn't make it an
equal choice.

> >>>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.
>
> Each perceives his world somewhat in his way.

Which does not imply that one's own view is necessarily correct, or
that someone else's is incorrect.

> >> I suspect that's because yours
> >>includes a large measure of fantasy.
>
> > Easy to be an e-thug hiding behind your keyboard, eh, Frank?
>
> I suspect it has more to do with questioning one's observations.
> There are many "common beliefs" out there that don't stand up to
> close scrutiny. *Check some of the urban legends sites to see.

This is not one of those things. It is Frank being an asshole at a
distance.

> Hell, aliens have resided in the US since the late 40's for all
> we know.

The potential to see 100% of bike riders running stop signs is
infinitely greater than finding a resident extraterestrial.

Don't be an idiot.

> >>>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.
>
> One "problem" with bicyclist behavior is that there is a significant
> number of individuals riding bikes that are young; kids actually.
> This demographic isn't necessarily known for driving "properly" on
> the road, just as the 18-25 year old motoring demographic is known
> to be a dangerous one in cars.

Which mean, in a backhanded way, that Nate's observation is logically
possible.

>> >> 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.
>
> No but the OP did say 100% of bicyclist he has observed don't stop
> at stop signs/lights, then proceeded to apply that generalization
> to "bicyclists".

No. He was careful to set the parameters ahead of time. Your
sensitive feeling may not accept that, but it's true.

> That's a common thing to do but is still a broad sweeping negative
> generalization that IMHO is incorrect.

That conclusion is not a logical consequence of Nate's commentary.

E.P.

On Feb 28, 5:18*am, Stephen Harding > wrote:

> Let's face it, most motorists go too fast! *

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Get some education before you venture back into usenet, so that you
won't look like such a fool.

E.P.

On Feb 27, 9:30 pm, Ed Pirrero > wrote:
> 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.

One man's "accurate" is, apparently, another man's "pedantic."

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

For the same reason that J.C. Whitney sells these safety vests for
motorists: http://tinyurl.com/3auqhh
and these Red Cross recommended safety tools: http://tinyurl.com/2u9c2g
and these safety backup systems: http://tinyurl.com/379elh
and these "extra safety" extra brake lights: http://tinyurl.com/2nnbln

They sell them to make money. That doesn't mean they're necessary.
That' _certainly_ doesn't mean they should be required.

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

Unfortunately, you're making the same mistake in logic that Nate is
making. I've never claimed they don't "make a difference." I'm
saying they should not be required. Why? Because at night, their
beneficial effects are completely overpowered by the effect of already-
mandated lights and reflectors. And because in the day, cyclists and
pedestrians are adequately visible for any remotely competent
motorist. If some motorists aren't competent, they should be removed
from the road.

And, BTW, hitting a legal pedestrian or cyclist should be taken as
prima facie evidence of gross incompetence, and should lead to
permanent loss of driver's license.

> > 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?

Ed, my original statement was "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." I was speaking of Nate's
supposedly extra-dangerous area, of course.

His response was: "Hell, I've probably *SEEN* five bent up bikes
laying in the middle of the road, with cops, ambulances, etc. in that
time period."

Of course, that contained a subtle shift of subject, since a bent bike
is not the same as a damaged car - and Nate was terrified of damaging
his car, not hurting anyone else.

But still: If he's "probably seen" five incidents, it would have been
reasonable to give _some_ evidence. No news reports? Fine. How
about safety data showing his area is way above average for serious
injuries to bicyclists? Or more to the point, how about evidence that
an unusual number of cars in his area are damaged by running into
illegal cyclists? Hell, how about just listing the details of the
five crashes he claims to have come upon in the past five years?

I'm safety chairman of a good sized bike club. I have connections
with local cops, sheriffs, and health care workers. I pay a _lot_ of
attention to cycling and cycling crashes. I haven't personally heard
of five badly damaged bikes in our area in five years, let alone
personally seen them in the road, as Nate claims.

How about you? Have you _really_ seen five smashed bikes in five
years? Do you think that's _really_ likely?

> 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.

Fine. You bet with him, on the "unlikely, but not impossible." I'll
bet he's either remembering very selectively, or (more probably) just
exaggerating in the grand tradition of Usenet.

A lot of Usenet "logic" is actually just grasping at extremely
unlikely, but not impossible, straws.

>
> > 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.

Well, he's on record as stating "100% of cyclists blatantly ignore
stop signs." That was completely unqualified. In a later post, he
said "I stand by my statement. 100% of cyclists that I encounter
flagrantly violate the rules of the road." Later, there was this
exchange:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>100% of cyclists blatantly ignore stop signs.

> Wrong.

Come ride with me someday. You'll see I'm right.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It seems obvious to me that he's conflating the two groups - that is,
the sample he sees and the total population - and exaggerating in
both cases. I'm not sure how you manage to understand those
statements differently.

- Frank Krygowski

On Feb 28, 11:25*am, wrote:
> On Feb 27, 9:30 pm, Ed Pirrero > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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.
>
> One man's "accurate" is, apparently, another man's "pedantic."

No, being pedantic is ignoring the other person's actual contention
while bolding trumpetting some fact, regardless of the logic of the
other person's contention.

> > If being seen in low-light conditions isn't important, why does
> > Colorado Cyclist sell Day-Glo orange reflectorized vests?
>
> They sell them to make money.

That's the ONLY reason, Frank?

Of course not. The reason is that reflectorized vests *can help* a
cyclist be more visible in low-light situations.

> *That doesn't mean they're necessary.
> That' _certainly_ doesn't *mean they should be required.

Common sense dictates some additional care. Being pedantic and
legalistic is a fine way to try and dismiss Nate's argument, but he
does have a point. Your yelling about how you "shouldn't have to" is
a red herring.

> > What you wear can make a difference. *Suggesting it doesn't matter is
> > non-sensical.
>
> Unfortunately, you're making the same mistake in logic that Nate is
> making.

Actually, I'm not. I got his point, and so did you. You're being a
pedantic jerk, for no other reason than you can be.

> And, BTW, hitting a legal pedestrian or cyclist should be taken as
> prima facie evidence of gross incompetence, and should lead to
> permanent loss of driver's license.

A legal pedestrian around here could wear black sweats at night, and
get run down by even the most careful driver. The lack of street
lighting and proper sidewalks make it a possibility.

Hiding behind the cover of "what's required" legally does not exempt a
person from having common sense.

On a bicycle it goes the same way - if you're going to ride at night,
it *might be a good idea* to wear some clothing that helps drivers see
you.

A "should" suggestion, rather than a "must" law. Even you can see the
subtle difference, right?

> > > 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?
>
> Ed, my original statement was "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." *I was speaking of Nate's
> supposedly extra-dangerous area, of course.
>
> His response was: *"Hell, I've probably *SEEN* five bent up bikes
> laying in the middle of the road, with cops, ambulances, etc. in that
> time period."
>
> Of course, that contained a subtle shift of subject, since a bent bike
> is not the same as a damaged car - and Nate was terrified of damaging
> his car, not hurting anyone else.

And that gives you license to say he's making it all up, how?

> But still: *If he's "probably seen" five incidents, it would have been
> reasonable to give _some_ evidence. *No news reports? *Fine. *How
> about safety data showing his area is way above average for serious
> injuries to bicyclists? *Or more to the point, how about evidence that
> an unusual number of cars in his area are damaged by running into
> illegal cyclists? *Hell, how about just listing the details of the
> five crashes he claims to have come upon in the past five years?

Or, instead of YOU justifying your own assholish behavior over the
internet, just acknowledge that behind the safety of a keyboard, it's
really very easy to call "bull****" without any concern over what the
consequences might be.

> I'm safety chairman of a good sized bike club. *I have connections
> with local cops, sheriffs, and health care workers. *I pay a _lot_ of
> attention to cycling and cycling crashes. *I haven't personally heard
> of five badly damaged bikes in our area in five years, let alone
> personally seen them in the road, as Nate claims.

So, you live in the same area? Or could the conditions be different?

> How about you? *Have you _really_ seen five smashed bikes in five
> years? *Do you think that's _really_ likely?

In my area, no. I have seen three bicycle-related accidents here,
however. Two with cars, and one bike-pedestrian.

Our population here is around 3k persons.

So yes, in the D.C. metro area, and the surrounding 'burbs, I can
easily see how I might come across one per year.

> > 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.
>
> Fine. *You bet with him, on the "unlikely, but not impossible." *I'll
> bet he's either remembering very selectively, or (more probably) just
> exaggerating in the grand tradition of Usenet.

Or, he has seen correctly, and you, in another grand tradition of
Usenet, are exhibiting a lot of keyboard courage.

> A lot of Usenet "logic" is actually just grasping at extremely
> unlikely, but not impossible, straws.

How ironic that you would notice that, Frank.


> > > *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.
>
> Well, he's on record as stating "100% of cyclists blatantly ignore
> stop signs." *That was completely unqualified. *In a later post, he
> said "I stand by my statement. *100% of cyclists that I encounter
> flagrantly violate the rules of the road." * Later, there was this
> exchange:
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------*-----
>
> >>100% of cyclists blatantly ignore stop signs.
> > Wrong.
>
> Come ride with me someday. *You'll see I'm right.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------*-----
>
> It seems obvious to me that he's conflating the two groups - that is,
> the sample he sees and the total population - *and exaggerating in
> both cases. *I'm not sure how you manage to understand those
> statements differently.

Easily - by understanding the conditions set forth in the first
comment. I do not then extrapolate my own pedantic ideas on top and
just ASSume he's make a conflation.

Want to try again, Frank?

E.P.

On Feb 28, 1:42 pm, N8N > wrote:
> On Feb 28, 1:17 pm, wrote:
>
> > Why don't [many cyclists use lights]? It's a failure of education and enforcement, mostly
> > the former. Personally, I think that kids should get a unit on safe
> > bicycling in their phys ed classes, at roughly grade 3, grade 8 and
> > grade 11. Compared to dodge-ball, it would do a lot more for their
> > long-term physical health to promote cycling, get them active, and
> > teach them the rules of the road. For the 11th graders, I'd include
> > heavy emphasis about the rights of cyclists and pedestrians, before
> > they go totally car crazy.
>
> So you admit then, that apparently the cyclists that I'm observing are
> not using due care and common sense.

Strictly speaking, all I can say is it's likely that a lot of night
cyclists in your area don't use proper lighting. I can say that
because other data I've seen indicates that problem for _other_ groups
of cyclists, and I assume your observed group is not much different.

Don't take that too far, though. Extrapolating to "all" cyclists, as
you've repeatedly done, is a mistake. Extrapolating even to daytime
cyclists is a separate issue. (And I'll remind you that the original
post was apparently regarding daytime visibility, not nighttime.)

> > Yeah, we get that a lot on Usenet. Not specifically about cyclists
> > being unreasonable - rather, about the person's little corner of the
> > world being somehow special. "Nobody can tell me anything, because I
> > live here, and 'here' is absolutely unique in the universe."
>
> I don't know that it's all that special. I do know some serious
> cyclists who live elsewhere that would condemn such actions, but the
> overwhelming amount of idiocy I see leads me to believe that people
> here might be a *little* more careless [than others]...

I wouldn't presume to make such a judgment without _some_ data.

> > > > 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. ...
> > > Similarly with a pedestrian accident that I saw only a few blocks from
> > > my house. Apparently they aren't news-worthy.
>
> > Don't despair. The last 100 car crashes I saw (all after the fact, of
> > course) were not mentioned in the paper either.
>
> I'm sure you actually saw 100 car crashes. Even around here, two a
> week is pushing it; I might give you 50.

I've been driving since 1964. I _know_ I've come across at least 100
car crashes - after the fact, as I said. That includes two I'm very
sure were fatalities, based on the positions of the bodies. The last
traffic crash I came across was just three days ago. And no, it
wasn't in any news report.

>
> > > >>>>100% of cyclists blatantly ignore stop signs.
> > I believe I have your initial statement correctly cited above.
>
> Well, IN MY EXPERIENCE I have not seen the counterexample yet.

Then think back. A motorist typically has a cyclist in view for, oh,
about 30 seconds. In almost all of those encounters, the cyclist is
simply riding on a road, not passing a stop sign controlled
intersection. IOW, the vast majority of the cyclists any motorist
will see can't even be called part of the test.

Of those actually at stop signs - can you really be _positive_ you've
_never_ seen a cyclist stop? That would be an astounding situation.
If nothing else, many cyclists _must_ stop when their small street
intersects a very busy arterial, otherwise they would instantly die.

And even of those you've seen roll through - did not many of them
commit the common road-user "venial sin," of slowing down, seeing it
was clear, and then rolling through? That's what happens in front of
my house roughly 200 times per day. Most think it's a bit different
than "blatantly running the stop sign."

Exaggeration is easy on Usenet. Think carefully before posting.

- Frank Krygowski

Ed Pirrero wrote:
> On Feb 28, 5:37 am, Stephen Harding > wrote:
>>
>>I suspect it has more to do with questioning one's observations.
>>There are many "common beliefs" out there that don't stand up to
>>close scrutiny. Check some of the urban legends sites to see.
>
> This is not one of those things. It is Frank being an asshole at a
> distance.
>
>>Hell, aliens have resided in the US since the late 40's for all
>>we know.
>
> The potential to see 100% of bike riders running stop signs is
> infinitely greater than finding a resident extraterestrial.
>
> Don't be an idiot.

But one doesn't even really know that is true.

The ultimate point is that reflective clothing on bicyclists
is not a requirement for individuals engaging in the activity
at night. It may be helpful, but persons choosing to wear
ninja black while riding are not being irresponsible. Bright
clothing isn't really a critical aspect of night bicycling as
would be for a pedestrian walking the road.

Reflectors and in particularly lights, are required for
responsible riding. Anything beyond that whether visible
clothing, flashing strobes or wailing fog horn blasts every
5 seconds doesn't need to be part of the deal.


SMH

On Feb 28, 2:47*pm, wrote:
> On Feb 28, 1:42 pm, N8N > wrote:
>
> > On Feb 28, 1:17 pm, wrote:
>
> > > Why don't [many cyclists use lights]? *It's a failure of education and enforcement, mostly
> > > the former. *Personally, I think that kids should get a unit on safe
> > > bicycling in their phys ed classes, at roughly grade 3, grade 8 and
> > > grade 11. *Compared to dodge-ball, it would do a lot more for their
> > > long-term physical health to promote cycling, get them active, and
> > > teach them the rules of the road. *For the 11th graders, I'd include
> > > heavy emphasis about the rights of cyclists and pedestrians, before
> > > they go totally car crazy.
>
> > So you admit then, that apparently the cyclists that I'm observing are
> > not using due care and common sense.
>
> Strictly speaking, all I can say is it's likely that a lot of night
> cyclists in your area don't use proper lighting. *I can say that
> because other data I've seen indicates that problem for _other_ groups
> of cyclists, and I assume your observed group is not much different.
>
> Don't take that too far, though. *Extrapolating to "all" cyclists, as
> you've repeatedly done, is a mistake. *Extrapolating even to daytime
> cyclists is a separate issue. *(And I'll remind you that the original
> post was apparently regarding daytime visibility, not nighttime.)

I was primarily referring to after dark; since it's winter, I'm not
likely to be encountering cyclists during the daytime (as most of the
ones that I see are near my house, as most of my commute is on the
toll road.)

>
> > > Yeah, we get that a lot on Usenet. *Not specifically about cyclists
> > > being unreasonable - rather, about the person's little corner of the
> > > world being somehow special. *"Nobody can tell me anything, because I
> > > live here, and 'here' is absolutely unique in the universe."
>
> > I don't know that it's all that special. *I do know some serious
> > cyclists who live elsewhere that would condemn such actions, but the
> > overwhelming amount of idiocy I see leads me to believe that people
> > here might be a *little* more careless [than others]...
>
> I wouldn't presume to make such a judgment without _some_ data.

"People are mostly the same everywhere, with minor differences" is
generally a safe statement to make, unless you're talking about some
dramatic geographic and cultural differences, like trying to make
generalizations about the behavior of cyclists in China from observing
them in your neighborhood.

>
> > > > > 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. *...
> > > > Similarly with a pedestrian accident that I saw only a few blocks from
> > > > my house. *Apparently they aren't news-worthy.
>
> > > Don't despair. *The last 100 car crashes I saw (all after the fact, of
> > > course) were not mentioned in the paper either.
>
> > I'm sure you actually saw 100 car crashes. *Even around here, two a
> > week is pushing it; I might give you 50.
>
> I've been driving since 1964. *I _know_ I've come across at least 100
> car crashes - after the fact, as I said. *That includes two I'm very
> sure were fatalities, based on the positions of the bodies. *The last
> traffic crash I came across was just three days ago. *And no, it
> wasn't in any news report.

I thought you meant in a one year period. 100 over 40 years, counting
seeing them after the fact, is low, in my experience, but then again,
drivers around here don't seem to understand how to handle freak
occurrances like water falling from the sky, so that may explain some
of it. That, and there's just too damn many people. (I'd love to
move to somewhere a little less populated; I'm not sure how to make
that happen while maintaining my current salary however.)

> > > > >>>>100% of cyclists blatantly ignore stop signs.
> > > I believe I have your initial statement correctly cited above.
>
> > Well, IN MY EXPERIENCE I have not seen the counterexample yet.
>
> Then think back. *A motorist typically has a cyclist in view for, oh,
> about 30 seconds. *In almost all of those encounters, the cyclist is
> simply riding on a road, not passing a stop sign controlled
> intersection. *IOW, the vast majority of the cyclists any motorist
> will see can't even be called part of the test.
>
> Of those actually at stop signs - can you really be _positive_ you've
> _never_ seen a cyclist stop? *That would be an astounding situation.
> If nothing else, many cyclists _must_ stop when their small street
> intersects a very busy arterial, otherwise they would instantly die.

Yes. Might be a little bit of a special situation however, as the
overwhelming majority of cyclists that I see are on fairly residential
streets. Not to start up the whole other thread that I'm trying very
hard to avoid, but the area in which I live has had some very ill-
advised traffic management choices, such as installing speed humps on
the main road connecting US-29 to the Metro station, despite the fact
that for half that travel distance there's a deserted industrial lot
on one side of the road. So most of the driving traffic to the Metro
station is diverted onto residential streets (myself included) part of
which is a posted "bike route." So I do not see cyclists intersecting
with main roads; I do see them however riding on residential streets,
albeit ones that are unnecessarily heavily traveled.

>
> And even of those you've seen roll through - did not many of them
> commit the common road-user "venial sin," of slowing down, seeing it
> was clear, and then rolling through? *That's what happens in front of
> my house roughly 200 times per day. *Most think it's a bit different
> than "blatantly running the stop sign."
>
> Exaggeration is easy on Usenet. *Think carefully before posting.

I do occasionally see cyclists acting as you describe, which I agree
is technically an infraction but understandable and reasonably safe if
done with care and awareness. Far more often, however, I do not -
they simply proceed through the intersection at full speed; and I
can't tell if they're actually looking for cross traffic or not as I
don't see their heads move.

nate

Ed Pirrero wrote:
> On Feb 28, 5:18 am, Stephen Harding > wrote:
>
>
>>Let's face it, most motorists go too fast!
>
>
> You have no idea what you are talking about.
>
> Get some education before you venture back into usenet, so that you
> won't look like such a fool.

You can't possibly be disagreeing with that statement...
or can you?

Are you basing this obvious untruth I've spoken on some sort
of survey or study or is this personal observation?

Drivers drive too fast! That's my personal observation and
if you do some web searching, you'll find there are plenty
of surveys/studies that show "excessive speed" as the primary
factor in accidents, whether single car (driver loses control)
or collisions with other vehicles.

Speed is even a factor in fatal accidents (in the US) where
alcohol is the official contributing factor (40% I believe).

You honestly believe motorists generally restrict themselves
to legal limits or are you getting them off the hook by simply
claiming legal speed limits aren't valid measures of excessive
speed?

[Yes I believe some speed limits are indeed set too low.
But most are within reason and not worth quibbling over.]

How shall we determine excessive speed then? Can such a
concept even exist? What's "fast" for you is pretty tame
for Mario Andretti or Jeff Gordon.


SMH