Do you feel intimidated by Traffic? Ole!

donquijote1954 said:

(I hope you see the need for a separate thread where the focus is
strictly bikes. Well, you may occasionally launch your tirades against
bad drivers like these...)

This is my original post...

I know, you only dare ride a stationary bike, or perhaps you are breve
enough to bike to work, but do you still feel intimidated by traffic?
Well, it's like asking the bullfighter if he feels intimidated by the
beast, only that you are not looking for trouble and that the beast we
are facing can absolutely be tamed --if only the government cared.

So is the cyclist out there a bit of a bullfighter? Do you feel that
black SUV charging at you like a raging bull? Ole!

http://webspawner.com/users/bikeforpeace

A bullfighter... yeah, that works. Few drivers have spikes driven into
their groins to [censored] them off. Well, none do, but there are always
thousands of cars on the route, and the odds are a few of them feel a
bit "bullish." Other odds limit the chance that one of these will be in
your lane or crossing your path when it matters.

It takes a little bit of psychosis for someone to play chicken with a
completely defenseless cyclist. Thankfully, very few people are
psychotic, AND psychotic behind the wheel. The vast majority of motor
vehicle versus cyclist (as opposed to "person on a bike"😉 are due to
errors in judgment or inattention, almost always on the part of the driver.

I pick routes with an eye for ample shoulder space. A wide usable
shoulder is armor for a bike rider. When the shoulder narrows or
disappears, I take the lane and hammer. It's a little like sidestepping
the charging bull.

I actually prefer a high-traffic, medium to high speed route through
town with many intersections and driveways. It's the main "cruising"
route, in fact. It means to me that drivers are always alert. I'm
counting on that alertness. The judgment errors are just par for the
course, and that's where the bullfighting comes in.

--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the
trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view,
the most insidious of traitors."
George H.W. Bush, April 16, 1999,

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

[newsgroups trimmed]

[...]

Quoted message said:

A bullfighter... yeah, that works. Few drivers have spikes driven into
their groins to [censored] them off. Well, none do, but there are always
thousands of cars on the route, and the odds are a few of them feel a bit
"bullish." Other odds limit the chance that one of these will be in your
lane or crossing your path when it matters.

Another Russian roulette player!

Quoted message said:

It takes a little bit of psychosis for someone to play chicken with a
completely defenseless cyclist. Thankfully, very few people are psychotic,
AND psychotic behind the wheel. The vast majority of motor vehicle versus
cyclist (as opposed to "person on a bike"😉 are due to errors in judgment
or inattention, almost always on the part of the driver.

There are millions of very stupid drivers on the roads of the U.S. Any idiot
at all can get a driver's license. I have seen so many cyclists in really
horrible accidents with motor vehicles that I am fearful of riding my bike
on any number of heavily trafficked roads. You NEVER want to be on a two
lane major highway with no shoulder. Damn it, I said NEVER and I meant
NEVER!

Quoted message said:

I pick routes with an eye for ample shoulder space. A wide usable shoulder
is armor for a bike rider. When the shoulder narrows or disappears, I take
the lane and hammer. It's a little like sidestepping the charging bull.

Very wise of you to pick roads with shoulders upon which to ride.

Quoted message said:

I actually prefer a high-traffic, medium to high speed route through town
with many intersections and driveways. It's the main "cruising" route, in
fact. It means to me that drivers are always alert. I'm counting on that
alertness. The judgment errors are just par for the course, and that's
where the bullfighting comes in.

It is really quite amazing how we count on drivers to watch out for us.
However, I know the world's dumbest driver. Every time he gets behind the
wheel, there is an going to be an accident down the road. Believe me, you do
not want to be anywhere near this dolt when he is driving his car.

A cyclist should always prefer traffic free streets. Even if it means you
have to go slower, you will likely live longer. A cyclist who likes to mix
with traffic is not long for this world.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Raptor wrote:
:: It takes a little bit of psychosis for someone to play chicken with a
:: completely defenseless cyclist. Thankfully, very few people are
:: psychotic, AND psychotic behind the wheel. The vast majority of motor
:: vehicle versus cyclist (as opposed to "person on a bike"😉 are due to
:: errors in judgment or inattention, almost always on the part of the
:: driver.

I wonder about the veracity of that last statement. What precentage of the
time is the error due to errors in judgment or inattention on the part of
the cyclist?

Roger Zoul said:

Raptor wrote:
:: It takes a little bit of psychosis for someone to play chicken with a
:: completely defenseless cyclist. Thankfully, very few people are
:: psychotic, AND psychotic behind the wheel. The vast majority of motor
:: vehicle versus cyclist (as opposed to "person on a bike"😉 are due to
:: errors in judgment or inattention, almost always on the part of the
:: driver.

Yes, I generally try to ride traffic free roads. It's preferrable, but
it isn't always possible. For me that means a 45 mile one way trip to
do this. My honest thoughts are it will be a quick death.

Raptor said:

donquijote1954 said:

(I hope you see the need for a separate thread where the focus is
strictly bikes. Well, you may occasionally launch your tirades against
bad drivers like these...)

This is my original post...

I know, you only dare ride a stationary bike, or perhaps you are breve
enough to bike to work, but do you still feel intimidated by traffic?
Well, it's like asking the bullfighter if he feels intimidated by the
beast, only that you are not looking for trouble and that the beast we
are facing can absolutely be tamed --if only the government cared.

So is the cyclist out there a bit of a bullfighter? Do you feel that
black SUV charging at you like a raging bull? Ole!

http://webspawner.com/users/bikeforpeace

A bullfighter... yeah, that works. Few drivers have spikes driven into
their groins to [censored] them off. Well, none do, but there are always
thousands of cars on the route, and the odds are a few of them feel a
bit "bullish." Other odds limit the chance that one of these will be in
your lane or crossing your path when it matters.

Drivers are bullish when they don't have any sword hanging over them
for intimidating others. In that sense, the system allows that happen
by not taming the beast. If it was given the same priority as DUIs, we
would probably be much safer. At least we wouldn't have the bull
roaming free.

"Roger Zoul" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I wonder about the veracity of that last statement. What precentage of
the time is the error due to errors in judgment or inattention on the part
of the cyclist?

You didn't know that cyclist are perfect human beings with no faults and
make no mistakes as they always loudly proclaim :-)

That is why cyclist are inherently allowed to violate all traffic laws and
blame any problems on those evil other vehicles that are required to follow
the laws, just because they are evil.

Edward Dolan said:

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

[newsgroups trimmed]

Not sufficiently! Who are all you monkeys with keyboards?

Quoted message said:

[...]

Read the rec.bicycles FAQ, do what it says, and pick the ONE newsgroup
your "discussion" belongs in.

--
*****************************
Chuck Anderson • Boulder, CO
http://www.CycleTourist.com
*****************************

Quoted message said:

donquijote1954 said in rec.autos.driving:

<[censored] slap>

Edward Dolan said:

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

[newsgroups trimmed]

[...]

Quoted message said:

A bullfighter... yeah, that works. Few drivers have spikes driven into
their groins to [censored] them off. Well, none do, but there are always
thousands of cars on the route, and the odds are a few of them feel a bit
"bullish." Other odds limit the chance that one of these will be in your
lane or crossing your path when it matters.

Another Russian roulette player!

http://www.lalatimes.com/weird/index.php?name=mansink0417&PHPSESSID=0030682ebe6b640967ec26b32b631c78

http://makeashorterlink.com/?X53023B8D

(Sinkhole swallows man relaxing in his living room, killing him.)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It takes a little bit of psychosis for someone to play chicken with a
completely defenseless cyclist. Thankfully, very few people are psychotic,
AND psychotic behind the wheel. The vast majority of motor vehicle versus
cyclist (as opposed to "person on a bike"😉 are due to errors in judgment
or inattention, almost always on the part of the driver.

There are millions of very stupid drivers on the roads of the U.S. Any idiot
at all can get a driver's license. I have seen so many cyclists in really
horrible accidents with motor vehicles that I am fearful of riding my bike
on any number of heavily trafficked roads. You NEVER want to be on a two
lane major highway with no shoulder. Damn it, I said NEVER and I meant
NEVER!

In a race with traffic control, such roads are lovely. 🙂

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I pick routes with an eye for ample shoulder space. A wide usable shoulder
is armor for a bike rider. When the shoulder narrows or disappears, I take
the lane and hammer. It's a little like sidestepping the charging bull.

Very wise of you to pick roads with shoulders upon which to ride.

Quoted message said:

I actually prefer a high-traffic, medium to high speed route through town
with many intersections and driveways. It's the main "cruising" route, in
fact. It means to me that drivers are always alert. I'm counting on that
alertness. The judgment errors are just par for the course, and that's
where the bullfighting comes in.

It is really quite amazing how we count on drivers to watch out for us.
However, I know the world's dumbest driver. Every time he gets behind the
wheel, there is an going to be an accident down the road. Believe me, you do
not want to be anywhere near this dolt when he is driving his car.

A cyclist should always prefer traffic free streets. Even if it means you
have to go slower, you will likely live longer. A cyclist who likes to mix
with traffic is not long for this world.

That's the theory, at least. I've been mixing it up with traffic in a
few locales for two decades without a major incident.

--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the
trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view,
the most insidious of traitors."
George H.W. Bush, April 16, 1999,

Roger Zoul said:

Raptor wrote:

The vast majority of motor

Quoted message said:

:: vehicle versus cyclist (as opposed to "person on a bike"😉 are due to
:: errors in judgment or inattention, almost always on the part of the
:: driver.

I wonder about the veracity of that last statement. What precentage of the
time is the error due to errors in judgment or inattention on the part of
the cyclist?

Having no statistics - there probably being no statistics about such
things - my statement means exactly what I say it means. 🙂 One doesn't
make the transformation from "person on a bike" to "cyclist" without
accruing some good judgment. But mistakes happen: I've struck two
vehicles on my bike, which is as many as have struck me.

I'm holding 'em to a draw, so far!

--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the
trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view,
the most insidious of traitors."
George H.W. Bush, April 16, 1999,

Jack May said:

"Roger Zoul" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I wonder about the veracity of that last statement. What precentage of
the time is the error due to errors in judgment or inattention on the part
of the cyclist?

You didn't know that cyclist are perfect human beings with no faults and
make no mistakes as they always loudly proclaim :-)

That is why cyclist are inherently allowed to violate all traffic laws and
blame any problems on those evil other vehicles that are required to follow
the laws, just because they are evil.

Let me see. The polluting SUV crowd is the Religious Right (judging by
their godly bumper stickers) and the frugal cyclists are the evil
people. Pollution is good and nature and peace are bad. Isn't that
Republican language what Orwell called "Newspeak" or something to that
effect?

Chuck Anderson said:

Edward Dolan said:

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

[newsgroups trimmed]

Not sufficiently! Who are all you monkeys with keyboards?

Quoted message said:

[...]

Read the rec.bicycles FAQ, do what it says, and pick the ONE newsgroup
your "discussion" belongs in.

Why don't you tell us where it does NOT belong?

Raptor said:

Quoted message said:

I wonder about the veracity of that last statement. What precentage of the
time is the error due to errors in judgment or inattention on the part of
the cyclist?

Having no statistics - there probably being no statistics about such
things - my statement means exactly what I say it means. 🙂 One doesn't
make the transformation from "person on a bike" to "cyclist" without
accruing some good judgment. But mistakes happen: I've struck two
vehicles on my bike, which is as many as have struck me.

I'm holding 'em to a draw, so far!

So the bullfighter has punched the bull in the head and the bull was
dead then and there.

I'm still more concerned about the cars and SUVs hitting me!

Raptor wrote:
:: Roger Zoul wrote:
::: Raptor wrote:
:: The vast majority of motor
::::: vehicle versus cyclist (as opposed to "person on a bike"😉 are due
::::: to errors in judgment or inattention, almost always on the part
::::: of the driver.
:::
::: I wonder about the veracity of that last statement. What
::: precentage of the time is the error due to errors in judgment or
::: inattention on the part of the cyclist?
::
:: Having no statistics - there probably being no statistics about such
:: things - my statement means exactly what I say it means. 🙂 One
:: doesn't make the transformation from "person on a bike" to "cyclist"
:: without accruing some good judgment.

Right...those that don't make the transformation (person-on-a-bike) don't
because they get flattened by a vehicle first (poor judgment). Those that
make it, are the ones called "cyclists" (good judgment).

🙂

Yes

necromancer said:

Quoted message said:

donquijote1954 said in rec.autos.driving:

<[censored] slap>

<double [censored] slap> on the donkey jerk-otee...

"Chuck Anderson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Edward Dolan said:

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

[newsgroups trimmed]

Not sufficiently! Who are all you monkeys with keyboards?

Quoted message said:

[...]

Read the rec.bicycles FAQ, do what it says, and pick the ONE newsgroup
your "discussion" belongs in.

Chuck, the message I posted had to do with safety issues in connection with
cycling. Therefore, it can be on all the cycling newsgroups where riding
your bike on the streets and roads applies. However, I do agree with you
that we should not engage in too much cross posting as every newsgroup has
its own culture which differs from the others.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

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

Quoted message said:

Edward Dolan wrote:

[...]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

A cyclist should always prefer traffic free streets. Even if it means you
have to go slower, you will likely live longer. A cyclist who likes to
mix with traffic is not long for this world.

That's the theory, at least. I've been mixing it up with traffic in a few
locales for two decades without a major incident.

You will always be much safer on a street with little or no traffic than you
will be on a street with lots of traffic. Elementary, my dear Watson!

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

(I'm quoting from Dahon commuting forum)

"I'm not actually against the idea of separate bike lanes, but I have
my doubts about them. A few points to consider.

Bike lanes which keep cyclists all the way to the right (or left for
our British friends) are useless when you need to make a left turn
(right turn in the UK ).

Cars are still going to make turns through the bike lanes, or try to
use them to edge around other cars waiting to make left turns. Simply
marking the lanes won't help much if you don't have good police
enforcement of the laws concerning them.

Trash is still going to get swept to the side, louts are still going to
throw glass bottles out of car windows toward the side, the side of the
road is still going to be where the storm drains are. The difference is
that, when a bicyclist moves out of the bike lane to get around such
obstructions, he may now be breaking the law. He will certainly be
doing something that motorists don't expect, and may not be prepared
for.

The roads in many places, like my part of Connecticut, are too narrow
to mark off a substantial portion as a separate lane. Cars and bikes
can co-exist as things are by exhibiting a little courtesy and
consideration, but making a new lane will involve widening the road.
Don't kid yourself that tax funds will be diverted from other, less
worthy, projects. Your taxes will go up.

By the way, concerning my remark about courtesy and consideration, I
find that most motorists are easy enough to get along with, even if
they have some strange ideas of how bicyclists "should" act.
Unfortunately, there is a large minority of ignorant &*%!!s, who
shouldn't be on the road.

Okay, I'll add this note. Some bicyclists are ignorant &*%!!s too, but
they're not quite as dangerous to others."

Howdy!
I agree there are problems with bike lanes, but they would have an
advantage far greater than its minuses: BRINGING PEOPLE OUT. All the
reports I've seeing cite SAFETY IN NUMBERS since those drivers holding
A LICENSE TO KILL (too many of those) then would be looking out for THE
LITTLE ONES (aka the cyclists). The current DARWINIAN ROADS we got
though are very intimidating for the little ones of the jungle.

Other than that we could do something like TAKING THE LANE, but it
would require some cooperation among the little ones. Like in the
movie...

THE ANT BULLY
In The Ant Bully, ants are like people - except better.

I mean, given the chance, most humans would execute or at least lock up
a genocidal maniac. But the ant queen merely makes Lucas hang out with
the animals he used to kill on a daily basis.

The ants have a complex society, religion and court of law. Their sense
of shared purpose and selflessness point to higher civilisation, even
if they love to eat caterpillar [censored].

But people are ruthless and destroy them for no apparent reason.

There is a moral about teamwork in there somewhere...

http://newpaper.asia1.com.sg/guide/story/0,4136,111416,00.html

PERHAPS WE OUGHT TO DRAW A MORAL OF THE STORY: THE BICYCLE BULLY IS NO
GOOD, AND IT MUST BE SHRANK TO SIZE.