Cyclist rant

Frank Krygowski said:

Unless the cyclists were looking back at you and giving you the finger,

....

Quoted message said:

Look, to put this in context: Have you never walked through a mall and
had people obstruct you for a few seconds? Was this really that much worse?

Malls, high school halls, whatever; they clump rudely in the middle,
rather than standing to the side. Roads, bike paths, blocking the
travel lane when not traveling at the other users' speed. That _is_
rude. It's not as rude as giving you the finger, but it's rude
nonetheless.
--
Rick Onanian

Zoot Katz said:

Knowing now about all those homicidal drivers bent on revenge it makes
me worry for my life every time I think to dare parallel parking.

You, of all people, drive?
--
Rick Onanian

Rick Onanian said:

Spoken "beep beep" is often enjoyed as humor.

well if you're gonna be oral, why such a crappy horn 😉

Why not something mighty like:

"baROOOOOgahh, BAROOgaaah"

everyone moves for an old tugboat...

😄

"Doug Huffman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
: Finally! It is amazing! 'Asses' and 'enemies' because we
disagree with you
: and some are principled disagreements. Provincial,
parochial,
: self-righteous and ignorant. Over and out!

Don't give up yet, Doug!

You may quibble with Bob's last remark, but I'll stand
shoulder-to-shoulder with his basic sentiment.

By turning the argument to "Oh, yeah? But what about car
drivers? How about how rude they are, huh?" all we do is
expiate our own guilt. This is a forum by and for cyclists.
We owe it to ourselves to _start_ with ourselves.

Let's give Bob the benefit of the doubt and assume that 100%
of what his OP said was 100% accurate. Now it's a good
philosophical discussion.

IMHO, the cyclists were guilty of failing to honor a very
simple responsibility--one imposed by common courtesy, if
not by law: be aware of others that are using the roadway,
especially those with such easy power to kill you if we're
not careful.

If it were me on the outside bicycle,
a) I wouldn't have been weaving. Period.
b) Bob wouldn't have _seen_ me in the outside position.
I'm fairly sure I would have caught him in my (get this)
_mirror_ first. Then--quicker than you can say, "I LIKE
CAMPY BETTER THAN DURA-ACE," I would have been back over,
single file. Screw all the arguments about 'practicable.'
The other rider was to the right; therefore, there was room
for two, single-file, on the right;
c) To the comment about "maybe they were turning:" there
would have been no maybe. If I were turning, Bob would have
seen my hand signal well in advance.

Telling Bob to 'relax, consider the time he's wasted, chill
out,' and the like only wastes more time, and verges on the
insulting. (Assuming his reaction was _anything_ but
intellectual--that it caused him _any_ heartburn at all), he
_could_ take the responsibility for "dealing with it." He
also _could_ offer it as a discussion thread in a cycling
forum, hoping to spark awareness that cyclists _and_
motorists have a lot to learn about cooperation and
courtesy.

Ignoring ourselves and pointing the fickle finger of blame
solely at the other, is little more than adversarial and
inflammatory. It serves to widen the divide, not bridge it.

$0.02 from the cheap seats....

Rick Onanian said:

Frank Krygowski said:

Unless the cyclists were looking back at you and giving you the finger,

...

Quoted message said:

Look, to put this in context: Have you never walked through a mall and
had people obstruct you for a few seconds? Was this really that much worse?

Malls, high school halls, whatever; they clump rudely in the middle,
rather than standing to the side. Roads, bike paths, blocking the
travel lane when not traveling at the other users' speed. That _is_
rude. It's not as rude as giving you the finger, but it's rude
nonetheless.

Yet I doubt there's a society on earth where it doesn't happen.

One reaction to this universal fault is to gnash one's teeth, increase
the acid content of one's stomach, and (perhaps) post rants on Usenet.

Another reaction is to say "Oh well."

I can't say I _always_ make the latter choice. But I think it's a good
thing to work towards.

I think the OP was shooting for something in between. I think, in his
mind, he was going to give a gentle but valuable piece of advice to the
rest of us. But in various ways, he failed.

If nothing else, labeling one's post a "rant" certainly shifts it toward
teeth-gnashing!

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

'Quibble with the last remark'? I 'quibble' with his failure to open his
eyes to engineering. He whines that a rude cyclist inconvenienced him. I
retorted with Ch. 8 of BT but might as well have urinated to windward for
the 'wetting' I get from an anonymous fellow traveler.

Are you conversant with Ch. 8? Then -respectfully - bugger off! Or argue
with it but not with me. Can you make an informed criticism? I doubt it.
So much for peer review - everything must be invented anew and nitpicked by
idiots.

"neil0502" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
|
| "Doug Huffman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
| news:[email hidden]...
| : Finally! It is amazing! 'Asses' and 'enemies' because we
| disagree with you
| : and some are principled disagreements. Provincial,
| parochial,
| : self-righteous and ignorant. Over and out!
|
| Don't give up yet, Doug!
|
| You may quibble with Bob's last remark, but I'll stand
| shoulder-to-shoulder with his basic sentiment.
|
| By turning the argument to "Oh, yeah? But what about car
| drivers? How about how rude they are, huh?" all we do is
| expiate our own guilt. This is a forum by and for cyclists.
| We owe it to ourselves to _start_ with ourselves.
|
| Let's give Bob the benefit of the doubt and assume that 100%
| of what his OP said was 100% accurate. Now it's a good
| philosophical discussion.
|
| IMHO, the cyclists were guilty of failing to honor a very
| simple responsibility--one imposed by common courtesy, if
| not by law: be aware of others that are using the roadway,
| especially those with such easy power to kill you if we're
| not careful.
|
| If it were me on the outside bicycle,
| a) I wouldn't have been weaving. Period.
| b) Bob wouldn't have _seen_ me in the outside position.
| I'm fairly sure I would have caught him in my (get this)
| _mirror_ first. Then--quicker than you can say, "I LIKE
| CAMPY BETTER THAN DURA-ACE," I would have been back over,
| single file. Screw all the arguments about 'practicable.'
| The other rider was to the right; therefore, there was room
| for two, single-file, on the right;
| c) To the comment about "maybe they were turning:" there
| would have been no maybe. If I were turning, Bob would have
| seen my hand signal well in advance.
|
| Telling Bob to 'relax, consider the time he's wasted, chill
| out,' and the like only wastes more time, and verges on the
| insulting. (Assuming his reaction was _anything_ but
| intellectual--that it caused him _any_ heartburn at all), he
| _could_ take the responsibility for "dealing with it." He
| also _could_ offer it as a discussion thread in a cycling
| forum, hoping to spark awareness that cyclists _and_
| motorists have a lot to learn about cooperation and
| courtesy.
|
| Ignoring ourselves and pointing the fickle finger of blame
| solely at the other, is little more than adversarial and
| inflammatory. It serves to widen the divide, not bridge it.
|
| $0.02 from the cheap seats....
|
|

psycholist said:

"Wayne Pein" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

psycholist said:

I live in a very rural area and I'm a high-mileage roadie.

The other day I was driving down one of the main 2-lane highways that

cuts

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

through our little area. There weren't any other cars on the stretch of
road I was traveling.

If there were no other cars, then why was it so hard for you to pass?

You assume a priori that bicyclists must allow motorists to pass within

THEIR

Quoted message said:

lane. Why don't you just move entirely into the opposing lane as if you

were

Quoted message said:

passing a slow moving 8 ft wide tractor?

Wayne

Because AS I SAID, there was a crossroad ahead and I couldn't be sure what
the clown in the middle was going to do. I didn't want to pass him in the
opposite lane or anywhere given that he was being so oblivious. I was
afraid he might turn right in front of me. (He didn't. He went straight.)

You sound all high and mighty in the posts you've made on this thread. Had
you been there, you'd have clearly seen that there was no excuse for this
riders behavior. He wasn't riding as far to the right as pracitcable by ANY
stretch of anyone's imagination. And don't try to tell me what I assume.
I assume that sharing the road is supposed to be just that ... sharing. I'm
a cyclist and I try to ride with consideration for the cars that also are
entitled to the road. This particular cyclist that I encountered acted like
the road was all his and screw everybody else. I'm learning from some of
the unbelieveable posts on this thread that there are a whole lot of you out
there who apparently feel all people in cars are evil and that people on
bicycles can do no wrong.

The road IS all his. When overtaking, you are a guest if he decides he wants a
guest. If there was a cross road up ahead and you can't pass for a few seconds,
too bad.

Wayne

R15757 said:

<< ...Why don't you just move entirely into the opposing lane as if you were
passing a slow moving 8 ft wide tractor?

Wayne >>

Why doesn't the jackass just move over a few feet?
What is so f***ing precious about being on a bike that
you can't move over a few feet?

What is the advantage to the bicyclist for doing so?

Quoted message said:

We move over because we can. If there is enough
space in the lane for the passing car and a skinny-ass
bike, make it work. It's righteous to act as if there
were other people on the planet besides yourself.
Cooperate and make room, if possible, and if not, take
your lane and most drivers will understand.

Robert

I cooperate how I want and when I want and allow motorists to use my lane the
vast majority of the time. So if and when I don't want motorists using my lane I
don't have to justify a reason and certainly do deserve to lambasted for it, by
anyone, including you.

And I don't think the bicyclist in question, who isn't part of this thread and
can't defend himself, has to justify his actions either.

Wayne

R15757 said:

Wayne wrote:

<< The as far right as practicable rule is largely misunderstood, and is
typically
poorly written.

Suffice it to say that the BICYCLIST determines what is practicable, not you or
anybody else. >>

This is true. But the constant abuse of this prerogative makes cyclists look
like asses.

Robert

What makes you think you can decide if the rule is being abused?

Do you read the mind of the alleged abusers to know that they are purposefully
abusing their privilege of using as much or as little of the lane as they want?

Wayne

Per Elmsäter said:

Well done. I've enjoyed following this thread and I am also surprised by the
illiteracy shown.

--
Perre

Yeah, maybe. But at least -we- don't drop off the car and try to ride the bike
home with the wrong cycling shoes.

I mean, how -dumb- is that? ;-p

-Badger

"Doug Huffman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
: 'Quibble with the last remark'? I 'quibble' with his
failure to open his
: eyes to engineering. He whines that a rude cyclist
inconvenienced him. I
: retorted with Ch. 8 of BT but might as well have urinated
to windward for
: the 'wetting' I get from an anonymous fellow traveler.
:
: Are you conversant with Ch. 8? Then -respectfully -
bugger off! Or argue
: with it but not with me. Can you make an informed
criticism? I doubt it.
: So much for peer review - everything must be invented anew
and nitpicked by
: idiots.

Thank you for making this easy for me.....

1) I didn't mean to attack _you_. I apologize for any
ambiguity that made it seem that I was. I spoke to the
exceptionally partisan position of too many cyclists;

2) If there's something in this "Chapter 8" that adds value
to this thread, please post a link. I'm eager to learn. If
it's been posted, then I apologize for having missed it, but
would ask you to re-post. I actually stand a better chance
of making an "informed criticism" once informed. I'm always
open to being informed;

3) I argued neither with "it" nor with you. The point I'm
trying to make is that we cyclists gain little by blindly
defending that actions of cyclists that most of us realize
used questionable judgment and represented our sport
unfavorably.

In the long run, aren't we all a bit safer if we 'close
ranks' around the idea that sharing the road is a two-way
street? Common courtesy, and awareness of other vehicular
traffic--two wheels or four--benefits us all.

IMHO, in this case, one of the guys on the bikes screwed
up--call it an error of _omission_ or an error of
_commission_--something that they _did_ or that they
_didn't_ do but should have done.

After that, we're really just arguing about the
appropriateness of any motorists reaction. I believe that's
_way_ beyond our ability to influence....

Respectfully,

Neil

: "neil0502" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
: news:[email hidden]...
: |
: | "Doug Huffman" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message
: | news:[email hidden]...
: | : Finally! It is amazing! 'Asses' and 'enemies'
because we
: | disagree with you
: | : and some are principled disagreements. Provincial,
: | parochial,
: | : self-righteous and ignorant. Over and out!
: |
: | Don't give up yet, Doug!
: |
: | You may quibble with Bob's last remark, but I'll stand
: | shoulder-to-shoulder with his basic sentiment.
: |
: | By turning the argument to "Oh, yeah? But what about
car
: | drivers? How about how rude they are, huh?" all we do
is
: | expiate our own guilt. This is a forum by and for
cyclists.
: | We owe it to ourselves to _start_ with ourselves.
: |
: | Let's give Bob the benefit of the doubt and assume that
100%
: | of what his OP said was 100% accurate. Now it's a good
: | philosophical discussion.
: |
: | IMHO, the cyclists were guilty of failing to honor a
very
: | simple responsibility--one imposed by common courtesy,
if
: | not by law: be aware of others that are using the
roadway,
: | especially those with such easy power to kill you if
we're
: | not careful.
: |
: | If it were me on the outside bicycle,
: | a) I wouldn't have been weaving. Period.
: | b) Bob wouldn't have _seen_ me in the outside
position.
: | I'm fairly sure I would have caught him in my (get this)
: | _mirror_ first. Then--quicker than you can say, "I LIKE
: | CAMPY BETTER THAN DURA-ACE," I would have been back
over,
: | single file. Screw all the arguments about
'practicable.'
: | The other rider was to the right; therefore, there was
room
: | for two, single-file, on the right;
: | c) To the comment about "maybe they were turning:"
there
: | would have been no maybe. If I were turning, Bob would
have
: | seen my hand signal well in advance.
: |
: | Telling Bob to 'relax, consider the time he's wasted,
chill
: | out,' and the like only wastes more time, and verges on
the
: | insulting. (Assuming his reaction was _anything_ but
: | intellectual--that it caused him _any_ heartburn at
all), he
: | _could_ take the responsibility for "dealing with it."
He
: | also _could_ offer it as a discussion thread in a
cycling
: | forum, hoping to spark awareness that cyclists _and_
: | motorists have a lot to learn about cooperation and
: | courtesy.
: |
: | Ignoring ourselves and pointing the fickle finger of
blame
: | solely at the other, is little more than adversarial and
: | inflammatory. It serves to widen the divide, not bridge
it.
: |
: | $0.02 from the cheap seats....
: |
: |
:
:

neil0502 said:

The point I'm
trying to make is that we cyclists gain little by blindly
defending that actions of cyclists that most of us realize
used questionable judgment and represented our sport
unfavorably.

In the long run, aren't we all a bit safer if we 'close
ranks' around the idea that sharing the road is a two-way
street? Common courtesy, and awareness of other vehicular
traffic--two wheels or four--benefits us all.

I absolutely agree. And it doesn't seem reasonable to blindly defend
cyclists who do things that are clearly foolish and against the law.
Here, I'm thinking of things like running red lights, riding facing
traffic, riding without lights at night, blasting along crowded
sidewalks, etc.

But the situation described by the OP has too many shades of grey. We
have one person's statement that the cyclists were being rude or
careless by riding two abreast. Yet we know that riding two abreast is
generally not illegal, and is sometimes advisable. We are told one
cyclist was weaving, yet we know that it's impossible to ride a
_perfectly_ straight line, and that weaving may be in the eye of the
beholder.

I've got no problem telling a cyclist when he's made a mistake. But I
prefer to reserve that for definite mistakes, not actions that are
possibly minor miscommunication, or differences in judgement.

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

Tom Keats said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Craig Brossman said:

psycholist said:

I live in a very rural area and I'm a high-mileage roadie.

<snip all to typical experience>

Quoted message said:

Bob C.

As a roadie, mountain biker, and driver, I see this all too often as
well, and it pisses me off. I had a "local" driving against me in the
opposite lane last evening, as I was riding alone, up against the side
of the road, beep 3 times so that I would not miss his salute. I can

^^^^^

Quoted message said:

only imagine this was from experience with the likes of guys you

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Quoted message said:

describe above,

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Not necessarily. Some drivers just plain don't like bikes, period.

You are correct, I really have no way of knowing, but my scenario is
just as possible.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

or he is just a [censored]-head.

Then again, what group doesn't have bad eggs which end up being our own
worst enemies? Unfortunately with our group, someone often pays with a
car/bike altercation, and the bike loses.

Fortunately, instances of drivers deliberately running down cyclists
are relatively rare (although apparently it does occasionally happen.)
I doubt the antics of a few riders has much effect on the chances of
any cyclist being randomly selected as a target by a murderous driver.

Also seems true, but those drivers may be less inclined to give plenty
of room when passing.

Quoted message said:

cheers,
Tom

IMHO, it is better to leave auto drivers without any excuses to crowd,
harass, or otherwise intimidate bike riders, but I can't argue that some
will drivers will dislike bikers no matter what.
In my mind, this is similar to the issues with mountain bike access, and
as an avid mountain biker, I feel compelled to always treat hikers and
horse folks as nicely as possible. It just can't hurt the cause.

--
Craig Brossman, Durango Colorado
(remove ".nospam" to reply)

Badger_South said:

Per Elmsäter said:

Well done. I've enjoyed following this thread and I am also
surprised by the illiteracy shown.

--
Perre

Yeah, maybe. But at least -we- don't drop off the car and try to ride
the bike home with the wrong cycling shoes.

I mean, how -dumb- is that? ;-p

I knew it. I should never have let that out for the whole internet to know.
Especially not you 😉 Wonder if there is a way to use killfiles the other
way around. Like this post may not be read by certain recipients.
Hmmmmm...................................

--
Perre

You have to be smarter than a robot to reply.

Bicycle Transportation: A Handbook of Cycling Transportation Engineers by
John Forester (Cambridge, MIT, 1994 ISBN 0-262-56079-8)

Chapter 8, The Effect of Cyclists on Traffic, p 89 - Delays in Next-Lane
Overtaking.

Equation 8.1 Dind = K1 m c (but I'm not going to transcribe a textbook, go
to the library.)

p 95 Conclusions ...

"... It is safe to say that traffic delays due to moderate amounts of cycle
traffic in metropolitan areas occur only on those roads that are of
substandard width, and generally only on two-lane roads that are both narrow
and almost overloaded with motor traffic..."

There is a universe beyond the internet with which you must be familiar.
The 'internet is a parochial view just as is 'cycling'. A cyclist cannot
delay a motorist's arrival. A cyclist may momentarily delay a motorist -
get freekin' over it.

Chill. Ride

"neil0502" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
|
|
| 2) If there's something in this "Chapter 8" that adds value
| to this thread, please post a link. I'm eager to learn. If
| it's been posted, then I apologize for having missed it, but
| would ask you to re-post. I actually stand a better chance
| of making an "informed criticism" once informed. I'm always
| open to being informed;
|
|

"Doug Huffman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
:
: There is a universe beyond the internet with which you
must be familiar.
: The 'internet is a parochial view just as is 'cycling'. A
cyclist cannot
: delay a motorist's arrival. A cyclist may momentarily
delay a motorist -
: get freekin' over it.
:

....and there is a universe beyond engineering, and beyond
law, that includes such concepts as common courtesy,
cooperation, and mutual respect.

Doug, I hope it's just my misreading of the words that you
choose when you post, but a hugely condescending tone
('parochial,' 'universe beyond the internet with which you
must be familiar,' 'idiots,' 'respectfully: bugger off!'😉
keeps peering through. I'm not sure with whom you're
engaged in a street-brawl, but it isn't me.

I was hoping that you could post the salient chapter from
the book that you referenced so that I might learn by
reading it. A simple, "I don't have a link to it," or, "I'm
not sure it's available electronically" would have sufficed.

Perphaps your points would get better traction if this
condescension were left out.

Neil

Thu, 03 Jun 2004 10:34:41 -0400,
<[email hidden]>,

Rick Onanian said:

You, of all people, drive?

Occasionaly, for cash, yes.
--
zk

Per Elmsäter said:

Badger_South said:

Per Elmsäter said:

Well done. I've enjoyed following this thread and I am also
surprised by the illiteracy shown.

--
Perre

Yeah, maybe. But at least -we- don't drop off the car and try to ride
the bike home with the wrong cycling shoes.

I mean, how -dumb- is that? ;-p

I knew it. I should never have let that out for the whole internet to know.
Especially not you 😉 Wonder if there is a way to use killfiles the other
way around. Like this post may not be read by certain recipients.
Hmmmmm...................................

Dear Per "wrong shoes" Elmsäter
It sounds like you live a real-life version of:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0108598/

;-p

-Badger
(All gentle ribbing and backstabbing is done with wet noodles.)

Thu, 03 Jun 2004 13:21:12 -0400, <[email hidden]>,

Frank Krygowski said:

Yet we know that riding two abreast is
generally not illegal, and is sometimes advisable

AFAIK, overtaking whilst approaching an intersection or railway
crossing at grade is ill-advised and most likely even illegal.
Therefore the OP had no business passing the cyclists until after
they'd cleared the intersection and so further diminishing his claim
of having been delayed.
--
zk

Rick Onanian said:

Malls, high school halls, whatever; they clump rudely in the middle,
rather than standing to the side. Roads, bike paths, blocking the
travel lane when not traveling at the other users' speed. That _is_
rude. It's not as rude as giving you the finger, but it's rude
nonetheless.

One thing I like about cities is that people know how to move in crowds, how to
stand out of the way, etc. Crowded cities like London can still be a joy to
walk in, while nothing's worse than a mall in small-town America on a Sunday
afternoon.

Matt O.