Saw an intelligent bicyclist today

In article >, Doc O'Leary wrote:
> In article >,
> Nate Nagel > wrote:
>
>> 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?
>
> Why should they have to? They're not the ones in massive vehicles
> moving at high velocities. When I'm on a bike, I reserve my respect for
> other cyclists and pedestrians. Or are you going so far as to say that
> even pedestrians should have to cow-tow to all the inattentive/impaired
> drivers? No, the safe thing to do is start taking away licenses.

So maybe they don't crash into me when I am bicycling too? How's that for
a reason? I get tired of playing chicken with unlighted wrong ways on the
street and dodging red light runners. The annoyance caused by poor
bicycle riders is much greater when I am riding than when I am driving.


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

> What is unreasonable is to stop *only* because a painted metal sheet
> said so. Some of us actually use our brains to figure out the world
> around us. Depending on the situation, that can mean taking any number
> of actions that promote traffic flow.

And yet, let me guess, you expect drivers to obey the number on the
painted steet metal sign and not use their brains to figure out the world
around them? You probably expect them to stop at the same stop signs
under the same conditions that you go through them under too....

In article >, wrote:

> 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.

A car can't bend a bike that was upright with someone riding it without some
sort of damage to the car. You might consider the level of damage
trivial, but should someone take a screw driver and do the same kind of
damage to your nicest bicycle I doubt you'd shrug it off.

In article <uiFxj.5216$O64.4347@trndny03>, Stephen Harding wrote:

> 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 wouldn't be one of those pro bicycle helmet zealots too? Because
those figures from the 'speed kills' and 'MADD' crowds you spout off are
about as truthful as what comes from the bicycle helmet zealots. Actually
IMO what comes from the bicycle helmet zealots is really more truthful.
They don't massage their data and definitions nearly as much IME.

Anyway, the whole point I'm making is one of consistancy. You really
can't argue against the safety nazi stances when it comes to bicycling
and then argue for them when it comes to driving and remain consistant
IMO. It's just foolish. Either you accept that people can adjust to their
environment or you don't. It doesn't matter if they are driving or
biking.

> wrote: (clip) But night or day, a
> motorist has no right to complain about jeans and a dark shirt. They
> are legal. (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Frank, have you ever heard this quotation: "He was right, dead right. But
he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong."?

On Feb 28, 1:01*pm, Stephen Harding > wrote:
> 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.
>
> Are you basing this obvious untruth I've spoken on some sort
> of survey or study or is this personal observation?

Years of traffic research in many industrialized nations.

> Drivers drive too fast! *

Asserting it again doesn't make it more true.

E.P.

On Feb 28, 4:01*pm, Stephen Harding > wrote:
> 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?
>

Yes.

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

Both.

>
> 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.

Most of those that come to those conclusions are highly unscientific
and paid for by those with an agenda. "excessive speed" (or more
likely "speed related") often just means "someone involved was
exceeding the speed limit" - well, who isn't? The truth is, the
percentage of drivers exceeding the speed limit is *higher* than the
number of crashes categorized as "speed related!"

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

Again, that just means that someone involved, who may not even have
been the cause of the incident, was exceeding the speed limit.

> You honestly believe motorists generally restrict themselves
> to legal limits

No.

> or are you getting them off the hook by simply
> claiming legal speed limits aren't valid measures of excessive
> speed?

Yes.

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

You're not from around here, are you? (I mean geographically, not
Usenet-wise.) IME nearly ALL speed limits are too low, outside of
residential areas, and thus are universally ignored.

> 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.

85th percentile is a good place to start. Adjust from there if there
are non-obvious hazards.

nate

In article >,
Larry Farrell > wrote:
>N8N wrote:
>>
>> 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.

There's enough laws out there that it's a good bet 100% of bicyclists
who have been bicycling more than some small time period have done
illegal things.

For those regularly doing illegal things, 100% is way too high. I'm
sure it's no higher than 99.99%. Perhaps even as low as 99%.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article >,
N8N > wrote:
>
>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.

That's because in a motor vehicle, it doesn't take a lot of effort to
get going again after stopping. And car headlights are ubiquitous,
require little extra effort on the part of the motorist, and reliable,
unlike bicycle headlights.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article > , Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
> In article >,
> Larry Farrell > wrote:
>>N8N wrote:
>>>
>>> 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.
>
> There's enough laws out there that it's a good bet 100% of bicyclists
> who have been bicycling more than some small time period have done
> illegal things.
>
> For those regularly doing illegal things, 100% is way too high. I'm
> sure it's no higher than 99.99%. Perhaps even as low as 99%.

That's true about everyone in the US of A. There are so many ticky-tacky
laws that by the latest news stories more than 1% of the population is
behind bars.

In article <9Mzxj.23245$6t3.8269@trndny07>,
Stephen Harding > wrote:
>Arif Khokar wrote:
>
>> 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 see these comments a lot from the driving groups.
>
>Often, I also see the comment that it is true most drivers
>aren't competent, but *I* am and thus speed limits really
>don't apply to me, because I know what I'm doing.

Straw man.

>However, order on the roadway completely breaks down when
>traffic laws become widely interpreted as "guidelines" that
>can be ignored under certain conditions.

Then fix the traffic laws so strict obedience isn't just plain stupid.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.