Lane question

Zoot Katz said:

6 Oct 2005 16:15:29 -0700,
<[email hidden]>,

gds said:

I think you are the cause of
festering road rage that will be sadly be taken out on someone else.

Why do you idiots constantly drag out this myth?

Pound your paranoid assertion up your nose.

. . .or cite a specific situation wherein a scumball scud jockey
admits they ran down a cyclist because another cyclist had angered
them.

Until then, go hide under your bed.

Always the sign of a good argument to depend on calling your opponenet
silly names. A real sign of maturity.

Zoot, a definition of road rage is inappropriate, unsafe action based
on misplaced anger. Meaning that often the expression of road rage is
not a reaction ot what is happening in the moment but rather a result
of frustrations from a whole host of situations being expressed against
some innocent person.
So, to my mind anyone who "needlessly" contributes to that frustration
is part of the problem.

My problem with the current argument is that I read this all as being
less a discussion of safety than of an assertion of rights based not on
the safest procedure but on some sense that as cyclists you have a
package of rights and are damn well going to exercise them.
Simply pput-- I don't agree with that position.
Calling me names won't change that and it certainly doesn't change the
merit of any argument.

Few who know me would call me shy, fearful or any of the other less
comlimentary terms you use. I ride a bike all the time and have done so
for many many years. I have very few confrontations with motorists.

In article <[email hidden]>,

gds said:

My problem with the current argument is that I read this all as being
less a discussion of safety than of an assertion of rights based not on
the safest procedure but on some sense that as cyclists you have a
package of rights and are damn well going to exercise them.

Safety largely depends on those rights. Use 'em or lose 'em.

Quoted message said:

Simply put-- I don't agree with that position.

I could be wrong, but this is starting to sound like
a roundabout way of saying "stay of drivers' ways."
Please tell me I'm wrong.

cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

Tom Keats said:

I could be wrong, but this is starting to sound like
a roundabout way of saying "stay of drivers' ways."
Please tell me I'm wrong.

You are wrong!
I am saying that there are many different situations and thus at least
as many appropriate responses. What I am reading in the "take the lane"
argument is an emphasis on exercising rights over doing the right
thing.

Rich said:

Wayne Pein said:

It is your inferiority complex, or your inability to understand my
writing, that is the problem. It appears that we are at an impasse and
must agree to disagree.

Wayne

We understand your writing, but you do not understand that you're
sharing the road poorly and are not being courteous.

Rich

Rich,

Unless you've ever seen me ride a bike, I think you ought to not make
judgement.

Wayne

Rich said:

We have more then a clue, we have numerous posts from you explaining how
you ride. You're a menace, you lower the effeceincy use of the roads by
unnecessarily blocking traffic, and you've probably made more cagers
dislike bikers then anyone else on this group.

You may now mistake my courtesy and abilty to "share the road" for an
inferiority complex....

Rich

Rich,

From behind the keyboard, you have no idea how I ride. It it also
pretty obvious from your "cager" characterization that you are an ideologue.

Wayne

7 Oct 2005 09:49:15 -0700,
<[email hidden]>, "gds"

Quoted message said:

Always the sign of a good argument to depend on calling your opponenet
silly names. A real sign of maturity.

Stuff your lame assed snivelling.

Quoted message said:

Zoot, a definition of road rage is inappropriate, unsafe action based
on misplaced anger. Meaning that often the expression of road rage is
not a reaction ot what is happening in the moment but rather a result
of frustrations from a whole host of situations being expressed against
some innocent person.

Where dafuk do you get this [censored]? Do you make it up or just
regurgitate the other idiots' paranoid delusions?
No asswipe cager needs any excuse to go bonkers. The automobile itself
is the deep-rooted cause of that insanity. They're sold "freedom" and
what they get is a cage that demands a large amount of their resources
to maintain that illusion. Their "freedom machine" is an albatross.
They're stuck. No wonder they're peaved.
[censored], It's not my fault they're crippled.

They bought into a fantasy that can't be fulfilled and that causes
their constant frustration by not being able to accelerate due to
other vehicles being "in their way".

That the spineless [censored] act out their aggression on anyone is
largely due to their perceived invincibility inside their plastic and
plush carapace.

Say, for instance, some stunned turd in a red Mustang cuts you off. Do
you now hunt down and kill all drivers of red Mustangs, or just slam
into the next asswipe who gets "in you way"? Do you flip them off
first? Do they return the gesture? Now, do you even think about that
red Mustang a week ago, an hour ago, or even a minute ago?
Get real.

Quoted message said:

So, to my mind anyone who "needlessly" contributes to that frustration
is part of the problem.

When they strap into their armoured wheelchairs, they're causing their
own problems as well as contributing to the overall insanity that
passes for acceptable behaviour in a society crippled and sickened by
its dependence on scuds.
Nobody said "needlessly" except you. From your cager's POV, it may
appear needless. You've shown your hand, scud slave.

Quoted message said:

My problem with the current argument is that I read this all as being
less a discussion of safety than of an assertion of rights based not on
the safest procedure but on some sense that as cyclists you have a
package of rights and are damn well going to exercise them.

I assert my rights in other areas too. I also accept my
responsibilities. Scud scum has a responsibility to not jeopardise
others by their addiction. You seem to be professing that it's their
"right" to do otherwise.

Quoted message said:

Simply pput-- I don't agree with that position.

I don't agree with your restatement of the "argument" either.

Quoted message said:

Calling me names won't change that and it certainly doesn't change the
merit of any argument.

Quit your snivelling.
--
zk

Fri, 7 Oct 2005 11:41:39 -0500,
<[email hidden]>, "Roger Houston"

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Get real, we live in an industrial, mechanized society. Vehicles are
here to stay.

You are pissing up a rope.

And you're blithly accepting the demonstrably unsustainable status
quo. I challenge it by riding my bicycle everywhere.

Quoted message said:

Zoot doesn't live in our society. He's at the fringes of it, at best.
Hopefully, he's more sane on the road than his alter ego is here on rbm.

Go brush up on your Vonnegut and take another guess.
I've been backed into _once_ by a stunned scud slob because he wasn't
looking for anything smaller than a bus.
--
zk

Zoot Katz said:

Fri, 7 Oct 2005 11:41:39 -0500,
<[email hidden]>, "Roger Houston"

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Get real, we live in an industrial, mechanized society. Vehicles are
here to stay.

You are pissing up a rope.

And you're blithly accepting the demonstrably unsustainable status
quo. I challenge it by riding my bicycle everywhere.

Too many bicyclists accept and reinforce inferior status by riding in an
inferior manner.

We need more ZOOT!

Wayne

Zoot Katz said:

Quoted message said:

And you're blithly accepting the demonstrably unsustainable status
quo. I challenge it by riding my bicycle everywhere.

I spent the weekend hiking above snow line in SW Colorado. Drove my SUV
500 miles on Friday to get there and then 14 miles of unmaintained
mountain roads to get get to the trail head- reachable only in a high
clearance 4WD vehicle. I find the ability to get far into the back
country highly valuable and do not believe you could do this on your
bicycle.
So, enjoy claiming you rights and occupying your lane and ranting
against the modern world. I'm going to enjoy the world as it is- and
there is plenty to enjoy.

7 Oct 2005 13:02:39 -0700,
<[email hidden]>, "gds"

Quoted message said:

I spent the weekend hiking above snow line in SW Colorado. Drove my SUV
500 miles on Friday to get there and then 14 miles of unmaintained
mountain roads to get get to the trail head- reachable only in a high
clearance 4WD vehicle. I find the ability to get far into the back
country highly valuable and do not believe you could do this on your
bicycle.
So, enjoy claiming you rights and occupying your lane and ranting
against the modern world. I'm going to enjoy the world as it is- and
there is plenty to enjoy.

Your iteration the so called "modern world" is based on an slick
marketing illusion that you gullibly swallowed whole, fool.
I'd say you're mentally and physically crippled by your dependency on
your scud if you can't imagine or manifest any less destructively
car-centric ways to enjoy our world.
--
zk

Zoot Katz said:

7 Oct 2005 13:02:39 -0700,

Your iteration the so called "modern world" is based on an slick
marketing illusion that you gullibly swallowed whole, fool.
I'd say you're mentally and physically crippled by your dependency on
your scud if you can't imagine or manifest any less destructively
car-centric ways to enjoy our world.
--
zk

Love it! Haven't worked with mental patients since 1971.

Why do you stay in an industrialized country if you despise it so much?
You could move to rural Borneo.

7 Oct 2005 14:38:11 -0700,
<[email hidden]>, "gds"

Quoted message said:

Love it! Haven't worked with mental patients since 1971.

Pimping your crazy sister doesn't count as working with mental
patients, goof.
--
zk

Zoot Katz said:

Pimping your crazy sister doesn't count as working with mental
patients, goof.
--
zk

Well we could keep the nonsense going forever. But on the nonsense
front you are sure to win. You really do make whatever good points you
have pretty hard to see when your basic communication form is insult
and cursing.
Have fun, continue on in any way you wish. Another benefit of modern
society, BTW.

Wayne Pein said:

GaryG said:

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

Quoted message said:

What brand/model? Most cycling mirrors are not very good (I've tried
most
of them), but I rarely go out anymore without my Take-a-Look mirror.
If you
haven't tried this model, you really should. It's far and away the best
cycling mirror made today...clips onto your glasses, and provides a
steady
view, with sufficient width of field. Much, much easier to monitor
overtaking traffic than the alternatives.

GG

I used a handlebar mount. It worked just fine as a mirror. The reason I
don't use a mirror is because I don't feel the need to monitor
overtaking traffic. When I did it made me more paranoid than any
benefits gained. When I want to turn left I do a look back. I don't need
the benefit of a mirror. I've been commuting during rush hour for many
years in a busy college town on a five lane road.

However, I ride with my wife everyday and she likes a mirror.

Unless you wear headphones or have a bike mounted radio blasting thrash
metal or something similar, you can often hear approaching traffic on a
bike, and by using proper signaling, and a look back, can probably get
away without a mirror most of the time....

W

gds said:

The Wogster said:

There are two different issues here:

1) If your going at 8 or 9mph, be aware of the 10 miles of traffic
behind you, move over, dismount and let the cars by. Good time, to
checkl some adjustments, take a swig of water, make it look like you
intended to stop for some reason.....

Why? It is perfectly easy and safe to stay right and let the cars pass.
Hundreds of folks do it every day of the year without mishap.

I'm thinking of a road that is not built for passing, for example very
narrow with lots of hills and/or curves, where you get a permanent
double yellow line, where you need to take the lane. Rather then
letting traffic build up to the point where someone does something
stupid like tries passing 15 cars, and then swings in front of the lead
car, because of the beer truck coming the other way. It's better to
know what is happening, and give traffic a chance to move, once in a while.

W

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

Quoted message said:

Wayne Pein said:

GaryG said:

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

Quoted message said:

What brand/model? Most cycling mirrors are not very good (I've tried
most
of them), but I rarely go out anymore without my Take-a-Look mirror.
If you
haven't tried this model, you really should. It's far and away the

best

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

cycling mirror made today...clips onto your glasses, and provides a
steady
view, with sufficient width of field. Much, much easier to monitor
overtaking traffic than the alternatives.

GG

I used a handlebar mount. It worked just fine as a mirror. The reason I
don't use a mirror is because I don't feel the need to monitor
overtaking traffic. When I did it made me more paranoid than any
benefits gained. When I want to turn left I do a look back. I don't need
the benefit of a mirror. I've been commuting during rush hour for many
years in a busy college town on a five lane road.

However, I ride with my wife everyday and she likes a mirror.

Unless you wear headphones or have a bike mounted radio blasting thrash
metal or something similar, you can often hear approaching traffic on a
bike, and by using proper signaling, and a look back, can probably get
away without a mirror most of the time....

Perhaps in an urban setting where overtaking speeds are slower. But, on the
semi-rural roads that I ride on (speed limits generally around 45 mph), it's
quite common to not hear cars before they're passing you. Contributing
factors include: wind noise (both ambient wind, and the wind generated by
cycling at 18-20+ mph), and the design of modern cars which are more
aerodynamic and have quieter tires.

GG

Quoted message said:

W