Cyclist rant

Badger_South said:

Per Elmsäter said:

Badger_South said:

On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 13:25:46 GMT, "Per Elmsäter"
<[email hidden]> wrote:

>
> 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/

The nerve. Comparing me with a criminal penguin.

--
Perre
"Just wait till you fall into the hole you have just dug"

Quoted message said:

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

Here! Isn't there a special newsgroup for that sort of thing???

Cheers, helen s ;-)

--This is an invalid email address to avoid spam--
to get correct one remove fame & fortune
h*$el*$$e*nd**$o$ts**i*$*$m*m$o*n*s@$*a$o*l.c**$om$

--Due to financial crisis the light at the end of the tunnel is switched off--

neil0502 said:

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

Perhaps. Courtesy is good.

But traction or not, the point was a good one. Cyclists are not a
significant source of delay for motorists.

In fact, I'm quite sure I'm delayed by motorists FAR more than they are
delayed by me!

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

Quoted message said:

Anyone else notice that toward the end of a ride -- especially a long
and/or hard ride -- the "startle response" is greatly suppressed? More
than a few times I've had yahoos yell, honk, pass too close or whatever
and I just sort of look at them as they pull away without even a hint of
a flinch or emotion. Guess it's survival mode time...

I've seen this on pistol ranges and in industrial settings. The
person will flinch at first but will usually become inured to what
would be normally startling events.

I had a dog once, not of a nervous temperament, generally, who
absolutely freaked out during thunderstorms.

As far as car horns, well, I've had mixed results. I pretty much
ignore them unless they're super aggressive and I'm in a bad mood.

Which isn't that often.

I sometimes wonder if they know how loud they are.

--

_______________________ALL AMIGA IN MY MIND_______________________
------------------"Buddy Holly, the Texas Elvis"------------------
__________306.350.357.38>>[email hidden]__________

In article said:

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"

I go for the cheerful "ding ding!" which works pretty well.
Maybe if I were mightier...

-- Dan

--
Dan Cosley ([email hidden] * http://www.cs.umn.edu/~cosley/)
GroupLens Research Lab, Univ of MN (http://movielens.umn.edu/ * 612.624.8372)
*** Just a foot soldier in the Army of Truth ***

Eric S. Sande said:

As far as car horns, well, I've had mixed results. I pretty much
ignore them unless they're super aggressive and I'm in a bad mood.

Which isn't that often.

(i don't mean to address this to eric, specifically).

people (afaict) honk for three reasons.

1. hello.
2. courtesy before pass.
3. get out of my way.

i get #1 every so often, especially when climbing out in the mountains (often
a cyclist driving) .. obviously that's ok. #2 i got a lot in south dakota
for some reason but rarely anywhere else. these for me, are the "good"
(if annoying as in #2) honks.

that leaves #3. the only exception to this case being populated entirely
by aggressive [censored] who want me out of their way (and onto the sidewalk)
is the guy who crept up behind me at a traffic light and wants to turn right.
normal people don't honk. and i don't bike like an idiot. if people are
honking at you because you're being stupid .. hey, ok. don't be stupid.

what're people honking at you for that you don't mind? i find it startling,
highly annoying and a warning of imminent danger. i believe that's why we
have them, actually. they're supposed to generate that reaction.
--
david reuteler
[email hidden]

Quoted message said:

what're people honking at you for that you don't mind? i find it
startling, highly annoying and a warning of imminent danger. i believe
that's why we have them, actually. they're supposed to generate that
reaction.

I find the honkers, as opposed to the honkees, to mostly be distracted
idiots who would blow their horns regardless of whether one is on a
bicycle or in an SUV.

The problem is that if you're on a bicycle, it gets more threatening
and personal. In other words, your condition three.

I ignore them because they know not what they do.

Their traffic experience is vastly different from mine, and by all
accounts much more frustrating and expensive.

So let the cagers blow, I care not.

--

_______________________ALL AMIGA IN MY MIND_______________________
------------------"Buddy Holly, the Texas Elvis"------------------
__________306.350.357.38>>[email hidden]__________

Quoted message said:

"neil0502" [email hidden]

wrote in part:

Quoted message said:

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

Which sentiment is that? The anger that there are rude people in the world, the
sense of absolute certitude that rudeness is the *only* possible explanation in
the instant case, the ruefulness that we are our own worst enemies, or the
contemptuous dismissal of any contrary opinions as being the unreasonable
attitudes of unreasonable asses?
Maybe he *did* want to spark a discussion that would lead to the concensus that
we *all* need to be considerate of others but re-read his original post,
starting with the thread title. If that was his goal maybe he should consider
ranting as a way of provoking thoughtful discussion because it didn't work.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

Wayne Pein asked:

<< 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?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Yes I read their minds. That is how I know they are
asses.

Wayne, cyclists do not have the "privelege of using as
much or as little of the lane as they want." I don't
know where you got that idea. If you're out in traffic,
you must abide by the general traffic law principles
right? That means moving to the right to allow faster
vehicles to pass.

That said, I absolutely agree with you that cyclists
must interpret that "practicable" nonsense for their
own well-being. The written laws are often quite
explicit that cyclists may take the lane if they are
moving at the same speed as motor traffic, if the lane
is narrow, if there is debris on the side, et cetera.
Because I feel like it is not one of the reasons.

Robert

"psycholist" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

I'm a high-mileage roadie.

That might explain the attitude problem.

Quoted message said:

The other day I was driving down one of the main 2-lane highways that cuts
through our little area. There weren't any other cars on the stretch of
road I was traveling.

If there weren't any cars, why did you have such a hard time passing
the riders, even if they were two-up?

Quoted message said:

I came upon two cyclists on road gear and decked out as if they were
reasonably experienced riders.

Why is it that every time somebody decides to complain about a bicyle
being "in their way", they are compelled to comment on their clothing?
I would love to have somebody explain this to me.

Quoted message said:

Despite the very open road, I had to just sit in behind them and wait.

Why not just pull into the oncoming traffic lane and make a vehicular
pass? (And if it was a no passing zone, why are you complaining about
not being able to pass?)

Quoted message said:

It's not that it was any big deal to wait 15 seconds until we got past that
intersection, but

Then why are you making a big deal out of it? Don't you have anything
better to worry about?

CC

Wayne Pein wrote:
:: R15757 wrote:
::
::: << ...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?
::
:::
:::
::: 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.

You do or don't deserve to be lambasted?

::
:: 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 Pein asked:

<< 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?

Yes I read their minds. That is how I know they are
asses.

Wayne, cyclists do not have the "privelege of using as
much or as little of the lane as they want." I don't
know where you got that idea. If you're out in traffic,
you must abide by the general traffic law principles
right? That means moving to the right to allow faster
vehicles to pass.

You interpret the law how you want, and I'll interpret and ride how I
want. I will let faster traffic pass me when it doesn't endanger me or
when it doesn't inconvience me.

The next time you are in your compact car and a truck behind you wants
to pass, let him squeeze by in your lane.

Quoted message said:

That said, I absolutely agree with you that cyclists
must interpret that "practicable" nonsense for their
own well-being. The written laws are often quite
explicit that cyclists may take the lane if they are
moving at the same speed as motor traffic, if the lane
is narrow, if there is debris on the side, et cetera.
Because I feel like it is not one of the reasons.

Robert

And when it is safer to do so.

If there is more than one lane then motorists can move into the adjacent
lane to pass. If there is only one lane, then I decide if and when I
want motorists to use part of my lane. If the road has no centerline,
then all vehicles are required to operate on the right half and as far
right as practicable.

You ride how you want.

Wayne

Wayne Pein wrote in part:

<< You interpret the law how you want, and I'll interpret and ride how I
want. I will let faster traffic pass me when it doesn't endanger me or
when it doesn't inconvience me. >>

Inconvenience you, eh? You're taking this free country
thing a bit too far. You can interpret all you want, but
that's not what the law says. In fact that's why the
law exists in the first place, an attempt to coerce
folks with your mindset to cooperate with others.

The legality or illegality of your arbitrary lane taking is
really beside the point. We should move over if possible
because it's the right thing to do, not because it's law.
Living in a community with other people is constant
give and take, that's how the whole thing works. If
vehicle operators act only for themselves, not only will
they arouse continual discontent as Confucius say, but
they will make extra work for themselves and will drag
the traffic system, of which they are a part, ever
further away from its optimum efficiency.

<< You ride how you want. >>

Not exactly. I ride as if there were a lot of other
people out on the road with me, and that involves
compromise.

Robert

In article <[email hidden]>,

Craig Brossman said:

Quoted message said:

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.

I think it's more often the case that drivers will pass closely
when a rider is too close to the edge of the lane -- appearing
too willing to share a lane that might turn out to not be so
share-able. Generally, the closer to the edge of the road you
are, the closer they'll pass you. In that light, close overtakes
may often be unintentionally invited by the cyclist. But there
/are/ some drivers who'll deliberately buzz ya. And some hauling
utility trailers with a bunch of 2x4s hanging out the right side.

Anynow, I prefer to gauge my lane position from the right-hand
tire marks in the road, than from the nearest edge of the pavement.
So far it's worked for me.

Quoted message said:

IMHO, it is better to leave auto drivers without any excuses to crowd,
harass, or otherwise intimidate bike riders,

When you say that, you get accused of having Cyclist Inferiority
Complex :-)

Quoted message said:

but I can't argue that some
will drivers will dislike bikers no matter what.

Yeah. But I still think most of 'em don't want cyclists
splattered all over their front bumpers & grilles.

Quoted message said:

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.

I'm with you there. We're all just people out enjoying
our pastimes. We don't have to step on anyone's toes.
And if we did, that would diminish our joy, just by knowing
we diminished someone else's joy.

cheers,
Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

R15757 said:

The legality or illegality of your arbitrary lane taking is
really beside the point. We should move over if possible
because it's the right thing to do, not because it's law.

The phrase "if possible" is where the complication arises. A motorist
may think it's _possible_ for a cyclist to move right, whereas the
cyclist may know there's a bad drain grate, or a field of potholes, or
bad glass, etc. Motorists don't know enough to judge for us.

Quoted message said:

Living in a community with other people is constant
give and take, that's how the whole thing works. If
vehicle operators act only for themselves, not only will
they arouse continual discontent as Confucius say, but
they will make extra work for themselves and will drag
the traffic system, of which they are a part, ever
further away from its optimum efficiency.

"Optimum efficiency" is undefined in this context. What's the numerator
in your calculation of efficiency? What's the denominator?

If we wanted optimum efficiency in terms of person-miles per unit of
energy consumption, we'd outlaw almost all motor vehicle traffic. Bikes
are far more efficient than cars.

Quoted message said:

<< You ride how you want. >>

Not exactly. I ride as if there were a lot of other
people out on the road with me, and that involves
compromise.

Nearly all the time, there's only negligible compromising. Nearly
always, motorists are not delayed at all by cyclists.

When compromise is necessary, the usual "compromise" that has to be
worked out is this:

Will the motorist be delayed by fifteen seconds, or will the cyclist be
placed in danger of serious injury?

Seems a simple choice to me. And it seems to me that the cyclist has
the right to make that choice.

And keep in mind, we get passed by hundreds of cars daily, whereas most
motorists pass a cyclist only rarely. IOW, we know more about the
situation. So again, the cyclist decides.

Courtesy is good. But cowering in the gutter to avoid delaying a
motorist is not good.

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

Arguing against the ghosts of an argument nobody made, Frank K concluded:

<< Courtesy is good. But cowering in the gutter to avoid delaying a
motorist is not good. >>

So you agree that cyclists should move over to let cars pass if doing so does
not compromise their safety. Good, thanks.

Robert

R15757 said:

Arguing against the ghosts of an argument nobody made,

?? Do you mean, nobody in past five posts? Nobody in the present
thread? Or nobody ever? The last is _certainly_ not true!

Frank K concluded:

Quoted message said:

<< Courtesy is good. But cowering in the gutter to avoid delaying a
motorist is not good. >>

So you agree that cyclists should move over to let cars pass if doing so does
not compromise their safety. Good, thanks.

Well, sort of. I agree with the general sentiment, with the caveat that
it's the cyclist who gets to judge whether doing so will compromise
safety.

But there's a further caveat: Safety alone is not the _only_ exception
to letting cars pass. There are times cyclists need to use portions of
the road that are not on the right, and cyclists really do have the
right to do that.

Getting a flat tire from crumbs of glass is not generally a safety
issue, yet cyclists needn't let cars pass if it means riding through
glass. Making a left turn requires merging left, unless one makes every
left turn "pedestrian style," but cyclists are not required to do that,
even though the merge-left move will prevent motorists from passing.
And so on.

So, as I said: Courtesy is good. But cowering in the gutter to avoid
delaying a motorist is not good. The cyclist has as much right to the
road as the motorist.

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