Saw an intelligent bicyclist today

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.

> 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.

> 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.

Doesn't sound like a pedestrian problem or a bike problem. Sounds like
you have a lot of people in your area who should not be driving.

> 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.

Here's a funny situation for you to ponder. It is not unheard of for a
motorcycle at a stop to be rear-ended by some moron driver that didn't
see them or didn't quite know how close they were to the bumper (I had
that happen to me). Consider the possibility that an even more
vulnerable bicyclist might not want to stop for a similar reason.
Consider the possibility that a number of the accidents you've seen in
your area actually involve the bicyclists that *do* stop when cars
aren't expecting that. Perhaps you're not seeing headlines because
"Cyclist Dead for Obeying Law" isn't the message the police want getting
out.

--
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com,
heapnode.com, localhost, ntli.net, teranews.com, vif.com, x-privat.org

On Feb 27, 12:26*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?

He was driving a bright lime green small SUV and you couldn't miss
them. Why don't they all do that or at least paint their car hunger
orange?

Pat

On Feb 27, 9:17 pm, Nate Nagel > wrote:
> wrote:
> >
>
> > 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?

A little. Much better would be "Why do many cyclists consistently not
use lights at night?" Again, the clothing item is negligible. Drop
it.

Why don't they? 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.

> >>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.

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 suspect that's because yours
> > includes a large measure of fantasy.
>
> I suspect you're an asshole that likes to throw out unsupported assertions.

That was not an assertion; as I said, it was merely a suspicion.

>
> > 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.

Don't despair. The last 100 car crashes I saw (all after the fact, of
course) were not mentioned in the paper either.


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

I believe I have your initial statement correctly cited above.


> >>>>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?

Time for more help, Nate. Get someone to explain to you that
regretting a dent in your car is NOT the same thing as thinking the
entire universe revolves around your car!

The former is normal care for your possession. The latter is
unhealthy obsession.

- Frank Krygowski

On Feb 28, 12:02*pm, 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. *

Do you step in front of freight trains and expect them to stop for
you?

> 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.

When you conceal yourself, you lose all reason to expect motorists to
yield to you. Just like if you do something unexpected like blow a
stop sign in front of a motorist that has the right of way.

>
> > 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.

Well, if it were cyclists only blowing stop signs when no traffic was
around it wouldn't be an issue, kind of a tree falling in a forest
situation. But when they do it in front of a vehicle that's already
stopped and presumably preparing to proceed (or actually in the act of
proceeding) through the intersection, that's something else entirely.

>
> > 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.
>
> Doesn't sound like a pedestrian problem or a bike problem. *Sounds like
> you have a lot of people in your area who should not be driving.

As bad as the drivers are, I can't say with 100% certainty that if I
follow a driver for a couple blocks that I WILL observe him violate
one or more traffic laws. I *can* say that about cyclists.

> > 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.
>
> Here's a funny situation for you to ponder. *It is not unheard of for a
> motorcycle at a stop to be rear-ended by some moron driver that didn't
> see them or didn't quite know how close they were to the bumper (I had
> that happen to me). *Consider the possibility that an even more
> vulnerable bicyclist might not want to stop for a similar reason. *
> Consider the possibility that a number of the accidents you've seen in
> your area actually involve the bicyclists that *do* stop when cars
> aren't expecting that. *Perhaps you're not seeing headlines because
> "Cyclist Dead for Obeying Law" isn't the message the police want getting
> out.

I think that they just flagrantly violate the law. Their reasons for
doing so are of no concern to me; what *is* of concern to me is the
fact that I apparently need to be extra-vigilant as their actions are
for the most part unpredictable, and in the areas where I expect to
see cyclists I also have to be extra-vigilant because they are hard to
see due to not having the required safety equipment.

nate

SMS > wrote in
:

> Doug Smith W9WI wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 14:54:01 -0600, Brent P wrote:
>>> 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. It is a well known
>>> fact that misused stop signs for the purpose of speed control are
>>> not well respected and often cause drivers to go faster. It is the
>>> consquence of 'feels good' traffic 'engineering'.
>>
>> Thing is, there is a proper way to protest a stop sign you think was
>> improperly installed. That's why you have a city council, county
>> board, and state legislature with public meetings and occasional
>> elections and the power to tell the Highway Department what to do.
>
> Good theory anyway. Getting a stop sign removed is extremely
> difficult, even when the city council admits that it is not properly
> placed, or was needed at one time, but not needed any longer. They're
> terrified of removing a stop sign then there being an accident at that
> spot.
>
>> While cycling, I really haven't had a whole lot of trouble with bad
>> drivers. (12,000 miles and only two close calls - both in bright
>> sunshine. Unfortunately that doesn't include close calls with
>> illegally loose dogs. I wish sawed-off shotguns were legal, I could
>> use one.)
>
> All you need is a police whistle. Works on all dogs except pit bulls
> for some reason.

can of pepper spray,or "bear" spray.
watch out,some states limit the quantity of pepper spray one can carry on
their person.Florida does; 2.1oz.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

On Feb 28, 1:17*pm, wrote:
> On Feb 27, 9:17 pm, Nate Nagel > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
>
> > > 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?
>
> A little. *Much better would be "Why do many cyclists consistently not
> use lights at night?" *Again, the clothing item is negligible. *Drop
> it.

OK, so why don't they?

>
> Why don't they? *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.

>
> > >>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..
>
> 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 and/or simply of the mindset
that they have priority over vehicular traffic (no matter what the law
actually says) but you're absolutely right that it is unreasonable to
assume that this is anything more than a small variation from the
norm.

>
> > > 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.
>
> That was not an assertion; as I said, it was merely a suspicion.

Well, come and visit and you will see that I am not exaggerating one
iota.

>
> > > 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.
>
> 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.

> > >>>>100% of cyclists blatantly ignore stop signs.
>
> > > 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%."
>
> I believe I have your initial statement correctly cited above.

Well, IN MY EXPERIENCE I have not seen the counterexample yet. A
cyclist simply slowing down and obviously looking both ways is rare
enough to be noteworthy. (and I really wouldn't complain if they did
that, and didn't come to a full stop, because I do understand that
accelerating from a full stop every block can become tiring.)

>
> > >>>>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?
>
> Time for more help, Nate. *Get someone to explain to you that
> regretting a dent in your car is NOT the same thing as thinking the
> entire universe revolves around your car!

I don't think that the entire universe revolves around my car. I'm
simply stating that to me, in a case of someone damaging my property
due entirely to their lack of due care, the damage to my property is
of more importance to me than whatever damage they also incurred as a
result of their own actions. Just as if I rear-ended you in traffic,
you would be more concerned about the damage to your car or bike than
you would be about my well-being, and rightly so.

> The former is normal care for your possession. *The latter is
> unhealthy obsession.

Much like many cyclists seem to have with their bikes.

nate

"Paul M. Hobson" > wrote in
:

> N8N wrote:
>> On Feb 28, 9:43 am, 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.
>>>
>>> I generally agree with you that many stop signs could be
>>> yield signs instead and that speed limits are often set quite
>>> low (whether to handle minimum safety conditions or perhaps
>>> just to generate revenue).
>>>
>>> However, order on the roadway completely breaks down when
>>> traffic laws become widely interpreted as "guidelines" that
>>> can be ignored under certain conditions.
>>>
>>> Surveys show virtually every driver thinks *they* are a good
>>> driver while *everyone else* is incompetent.
>>>
>>> SMH
>>
>> All of your points are valid. However, I think you're confusing two
>> completely seperate issues. The first is the posting of speed
>> limits, and the second is the skill and awareness of the average
>> motorist. Even a marginally capable driver in a car meeting the
>> minimum requirements for street legality in the US ought to be able
>> to handle driving on an Interstate highway at a speed significantly
>> greater than 55 MPH without any perceptible increase in risk. Anyone
>> not able to do so shouldn't have a license, and any car not capable
>> of doing so probably shouldn't be on the road.
>
> 55 mph speed limits were set to increase the national fuel economy.
> Power required to propel a vehicle is proportional to the to cube of
> the velocity. Gas starts getting burned really fast above 55 mph.
>
> \\paul

maybe in the older '60s-'70s autos.
Today's cars have a much lower drag coefficient.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

On Feb 28, 12:17*pm, wrote:
> On Feb 27, 12:26*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?
>
> He was driving a bright lime green small SUV and you couldn't miss
> them. *Why don't they all do that or at least paint their car hunger
> orange?
>
> Pat

that's "hugger orange," and the answer is "the po-po."

nate

Doc O'Leary > wrote in
:

> 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.

The AMISH slow-moving horse-drawn carts have to have a large reflective
triangle.Why should slow-moving bicycles be any different?
If slow bikes want to mix in with the heavier and FASTER automotive
traffic(a really dumb idea),then they shouldn't complain about things to
make THEM safer.


> When I'm on a bike, I reserve my respect for
> other cyclists and pedestrians.

Well,Whoop-de-do!
If you were smart,you'd respect heavier faster autos,as they can cause you
a lot more grief.

> 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.

license bicyclists.
Then take away THEIRS when they don't follow the road laws.
>
>> 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.

A bicycle in auto traffic does NOT "promote traffic flow".
It makes it worse.
>
>> 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.

That oughta be a clue as to mixing bikes and motor vehicles on the roads.

>> 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.
>
> Doesn't sound like a pedestrian problem or a bike problem. Sounds like
> you have a lot of people in your area who should not be driving.

AH,without knowing the facts,you automatically *assume* it's the fault of
the auto.
>
>> 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.
>
> Here's a funny situation for you to ponder. It is not unheard of for a
> motorcycle at a stop to be rear-ended by some moron driver that didn't
> see them or didn't quite know how close they were to the bumper (I had
> that happen to me). Consider the possibility that an even more
> vulnerable bicyclist might not want to stop for a similar reason.
> Consider the possibility that a number of the accidents you've seen in
> your area actually involve the bicyclists that *do* stop when cars
> aren't expecting that. Perhaps you're not seeing headlines because
> "Cyclist Dead for Obeying Law" isn't the message the police want getting
> out.
>



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 09:17:45 -0800 (PST), wrote:

>On Feb 27, 12:26*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?
>
>He was driving a bright lime green small SUV and you couldn't miss
>them. Why don't they all do that or at least paint their car hunger
>orange?

Now, for S&DDAM, that sounds like a good idea. Especially for those
parst that tend to drop off of cars that are ill maintained like
S&DDAM's beater.


Speeders & Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS (a.k.a. SFB) admits to being
a deadly speeder, psychopath and criminal coddler:

"> Have you ever driven a car faster than the legal speed limit?

Yes, but never deliberately. In fact i got a speeding ticket about 5
years ago for doing 41 in a 25. I just about kicked the cops teeth in
cause i was sure he was lying. No way the SL on this wide open
stretch could be 25, i thought."

Pride of America (c.k.a. Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend/
laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE/Speeders And Drunk Drivers
Are Murderers (SADDAM)), 10/3/2002
Message-ID: >
http://tinyurl.com/5u4wg

Proof that POA is LBMHB/lbVH/SADDAM:
See the following: http://tinyurl.com/ahphj